Previous month:
August 2005
Next month:
October 2005

Pandrol USA v. Airboss Railway Products

In sum, this court affirms the district court’s decision that the ’046 patent’s specification satisfies the written description requirement of § 112. In addition, this court affirms the district court’s decision to exclude Mr. Young’s testimony in light of the doctrine of assignor estoppel and because Airboss did not produce a timely expert report under FRCP 26(a)(2). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to entertain Airboss’s obviousness challenge.

Download PDF

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Cytologix v. Ventana Medical Systems

CONCLUSION

We sustain the injunction as to claims 8-14 of the ’061 patent. We vacate the injunction with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15, and remand to the district court to consider whether a new trial should be granted on the issue of obviousness with respect to claims 1-3, 5-7, and 15 of the ’061 patent. We uphold the injunction with respect to claims 1-3 and 5-12 of the ’693 patent. We reverse as to claim 13.

Download PDF

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

U.S. Phillips Corp. v. Int. Trade Commision

We therefore conclude that the line of analysis that the Commission employed in reaching its conclusion that Philips’s package licensing agreements are more anticompetitive than procompetitive, and thus are unlawful under the rule of reason, was predicated on legal errors and on factual findings that were not supported by substantial evidence. For these reasons, we cannot uphold the Commission’s decision that Philips’s patents are unenforceable because of patent misuse under the rule of reason.

Because the Commission did not address all of the issues presented by the administrative law judge’s decision under both the per se and rule of reason analysis, further proceedings before the Commission may be necessary with respect to whether Philips’s patents are enforceable and, if so, whether Philips is entitled to any relief from the Commission. Accordingly, we reverse the Commission’s ruling on patent misuse for the reasons stated, and we remand this case to the Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download PDF

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Mayer/Bershire Corp. v. Berkshire Fashions

Mayer/Berkshire Corp. appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing its opposition to the registration by Berkshire Fashions, Inc. of the mark BERKSHIRE for various categories of clothing. The Board held that the opposition is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel arising from prior district court infringement litigation. We conclude that the Board erred in its application of these doctrines. The dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded to the PTO for further proceedings.

Download PDF

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Informational Paper: Organizing Legislative Activity

Before you start organizing your group’s legislative advocacy plan, it is important to know what your group is allowed to do.  There may be legal restraints imposed by law or by your organizations internal rules.

Download the Informational Paper in PDF

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Why Incorporate?

Why Incorporate?

Operating a business without incorporating exposes all of one’s personal assets to liability. The primary reason to incorporate a business is to prevent personal liability for business debts and claims. After incorporation, claims against a business may only be paid from the business. By incorporating, a business publicly declares that the personal assets and funds of owners and investors are off-limits to creditors and anyone else who may have a legal claim against the business. By limiting liability, it is hoped that more people will invest in businesses and own businesses.


Read more by downloading the PDF.
Download PDF
Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

SKF v. Int'l Trade Cmm'n

For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the Commission’s determination that SKF USA did not establish a material difference between its own products and those of the respondents based on post-sale technical and engineering services. We thus affirm the Commission’s determination that there was no § 337 violation in the import of the instant ball bearings.

PDF of decision.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Nystrom v. Trex Co.

Because we affirm the district court’s constructions of “board” and “manufactured to have,” we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1-15 and 18-20. We reverse the district court’s construction of “convex top surface.” The district court’s summary judgment of invalidity of claims 18-20 of the ’831 patent as anticipated by the Zagelmeyer reference is also reversed. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the district court’s refusal to award sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 in favor of Nystrom. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

PDF of Decision

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc.

We vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and remand for a determination of literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents under the correct claim construction. In this connection, we disapprove the district court’s holding that prosecution history estoppel limits the scope of equivalents. Cybex and Nautilus are free, of course, to reinstate their counterclaims upon remand.

PDF of Decision

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Biagro v. Grow More

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that Grow More did not literally infringe the claims of the patent. The trial court further held that there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Judgment was awarded to Grow More. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

PDF of Decision

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.