Previous month:
January 2006
Next month:
March 2006

Gehrke & Associates, SC sponsors The Fifth Annual International Bioethics Forum

Gehrke & Associates, S.C. is proud to be a Silver Sponsor of the The Fifth Annual International Bioethics Forum: Clones and Chimeras which will be held April 20-21, 2006 at the BioPharmaceutical Technology Center at 5445 East Cheryl Parkway in Madison, WI.

The Forum has been approved for 12 WI CLE credits.

Lisa Gehrke will be a presenter at the "Clones and Chimeras and the Human Quest for Immortality" session.

For more information, please visit the BioPharmaceutical Technology Center Institute's website: www.btci.org

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.

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation (Curtiss-Wright). After construing claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,565,714 (the ’714 patent), the trial court determined that Curtiss-Wright had shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement action against Velan, Inc. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., Civil Action No. SA-04-CA-1157-OG, slip op. at 18 (W.D. Tex. 2005) (Preliminary Injunction Order). Because the district court erred in its construction of the term “adjustable,” this court vacates the preliminary injunction and remands.

Download the 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.

Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc.

Ferring B.V. (“Ferring”) and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Aventis”) brought suit against Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”) for infringement of Ferring’s patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,407,398 (filed Dec. 17, 1985) (“‘398 patent”). Barr moved for summary judgment, arguing that the ‘398 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and, alternatively, that Barr did not infringe the ‘398 patent. The district court granted summary judgment on both grounds. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the ground that the patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, and we do not reach the issue of infringement.

Download the 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.

Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.

Robert H. Peterson Co. (“Peterson”) appeals from final orders finding that Peterson willfully infringed U.S Patent No. 5,988,159 (“the ’159 patent”), and awarding Golden Blount damages and attorney fees. Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., No. 3-01-CV-0127-R (N.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2004) (Final Judgment); Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., No. 3:01-CV-0127-R (N.D. Tex. Nov. 15, 2004) (Attorney Fees Order); Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co., No. 3-01-CV-0127-R (N.D. Tex. Sept. 2, 2004) (Infringement Order). Because the district court did not clearly err in finding that Peterson willfully infringed the ’159 patent, we affirm the district court’s judgment of willful infringement and the award of attorney fees based principally thereon. However, because the district court did not address certain returned units in its calculation of damages, we vacate the damages award and remand that limited aspect of the case to the district court with instructions to reexamine the number of products sold and, if necessary, re-compute damages and enter judgment thereon consistent with this opinion.

Download the 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.

Hazelquist v. Guchi Moochie Tackle Co., Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellant Albert Hazelquist appeals from the May 20, 2005 order of the district court of the Western District of Washington dismissing his claims against Defendant Ken Yamaguchi, Hazelquist v. Guchi Moochie Tackle Co., No. C04-0316 (W.D. Wash. May 20, 2005) (Dismissal), and its June 8, 2005 order denying his motion for reconsideration, Hazelquist v. Guchi Moochie Tackle Co., No. C04-0316 (W.D. Wash. June 8, 2005) (order denying motion for reconsideration). The district court determined that, because Mr. Yamaguchi's debts had been discharged in bankruptcy as of December 29, 2004, all of Mr. Hazelquist's claims against Mr. Yamaguchi were likewise discharged. However, because Mr. Hazelquist alleges acts of infringement that occurred after Mr. Yamaguchi's bankruptcy discharge, we reverse the district court's dismissal of Mr. Hazelquist's claims.

Download the 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.

Digital Control Inc. v. Charles Machine Works

Plaintiffs-Appellants Digital Control, Inc., and Merlin Technology, Inc. (collectively, DCI) appeal from the decision of the district court for the Western District of Washington finding that United States Patent No. 5,767,678 (the '678 patent), No. 6,008,651 (the '651 patent), and No. 6,232,780 (the '780 patent) (collectively, the patents in suit) are unenforceable for inequitable conduct.1 Digital Control, Inc. v. The Charles Mach. Works, No. C03-0103P (W.D. Wash. June 9, 2004) (Bench Trial).

The district court had previously awarded partial summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee The Charles Machine Works (CMW), finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that misstatements and omissions made by the inventor, Dr. John Mercer, during prosecution of the patents in suit were material. Digital Control, Inc. v. The Charles Mach. Works, No. C03-0103P (W.D. Wash. Mar. 22, 2004) (Summary Judgment). After a bench trial on the issue of intent, the district court determined that the misstatements and omissions were made with intent to deceive the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and that the level of materiality and the inference of intent were both high, warranting a finding that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct. Bench Trial, slip op. at 26-27.

For the reasons stated below, we find that although there are no genuine issues of material fact as to the materiality of the misstatements in Dr. Mercer's Rule 131 declaration, there are genuine issues of material fact as to the materiality of Dr. Mercer's failure to disclose prior art. As the district court's determination of inequitable conduct was premised on the materiality of both the misstatements in the Rule 131 declaration and the failure to disclose prior art, we must vacate the district court's determination that the patents were unenforceable for inequitable conduct and remand for further proceedings.

Download the 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.

Lacavera v. Dudas

Catherine Lacavera appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Lacavera v. Toupin, Civ. Action No. 03-1469 (D.D.C. Nov. 30, 2004).∗ Because the PTO’s decision to grant Lacavera limited recognition was consistent with its regulations and supported by the record, its regulations do not exceed the statutory authority, and it did not deny Lacavera equal protection, we affirm.

Download the 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.

IN RE SCOTT E. JOHNSTON

Scott E. Johnston appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, affirming the examiner's rejection of all the claims in patent application No. 09/312,992, entitled "Large Diameter Spirally Formed Pipe," as anticipated or obvious.1 We affirm the decision of the Board.

Download the 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.