Previous month:
May 2006
Next month:
July 2006

Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.

PER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

US v. Vampire Nation

VAN ANTWERPEN, Circuit Judge.

On October 14, 2004, a jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted Frederick Banks on charges of mail fraud, criminal copyright infringement, uttering and possessing counterfeit or forged securities, and witness tampering. These convictions stemmed from Banks’s sales of illegally copied (“pirated”) versions of copyrighted Microsoft software products through an Internet marketplace website, Amazon.com.

Following his conviction, the District Court, on February 25, 2005, imposed on Banks a sentence that varied upward by three months from the advisory sentence range set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), and, on the Government’s motion, also issued an in personam forfeiture judgment in the amount of Banks’s mail fraud proceeds.

Before us now is Banks’s appeal from his conviction and sentence, in which he asserts numerous claims of error based on the District Court’s actions before his trial, on events occurring at his
trial, and on the District Court’s actions at his sentencing. Banks was sentenced after the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

Of the seven issues Banks raises on appeal, two are novel to this Court. First, Banks raises the question whether the District Court was obligated to provide him with advance notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h) of its intent, under Booker, to vary its sentence from the advisory sentence range set forth in the Guidelines. Second, Banks questions whether the District Court had statutory authority to order an in personam forfeiture judgment against him for the amount of the proceeds he obtained through his mail fraud.

As we explain below, we find no error in the District Court’s actions before, during, or after Banks’s trial or at his sentencing. Furthermore, we conclude the District Court had statutory authority to issue the in personam forfeiture judgment and was not obligated to provide advance notice of its intent to vary from Banks’s Guidelines sentencing range. Accordingly, we will affirm Banks’s convictions and sentence in their entirety.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Rottlund Co. v. Pinnacle Corp.

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.
The Rottlund Company, Inc. (Rottlund) appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for a new trial following a jury verdict adverse to its copyright infringement claim. Because we agree with Rottlund’s contention that the district court erred in admitting certain expert testimony, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Appellees have filed a conditional cross appeal, arguing that if a new trial is granted, the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment should be reversed. The cross appeal is denied.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd.

NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
This appeal is from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, reported at Gemmy Indus. Corp. v. Chrisha Creations Ltd., 72 USPQ2d 1409 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Gemmy Industries had filed suit against Chrisha Creations Limited and Mr. Quay Richerson for infringement of United States Patent No. 6,644,843 (the '843 patent) and for copyright and tort claims not now before us. Chrisha filed suit against Gemmy for various claims, primarily directed to unfair competition and commercial tort claims. The district court ruled on summary judgment that the '843 patent was invalid on the ground that the invention was on sale more than one year before the filing of the '843 patent. After that ruling, Chrisha raised issues arising from Gemmy's sale of patent-marked products after the district court's invalidity ruling, and the district court entered a preliminary injunction on the issue of patent marking. Chrisha Creations, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., No. 03-8937 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 1, 2004). Later, Chrisha requested enforcement of the preliminary injunction, but the district court found that Gemmy had complied with the injunction and there was no reason to alter it. Chrisha Creations, Ltd. v. Gemmy Indus. Corp., No. 03-8937 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2005).
Gemmy sought an interlocutory appeal, and this court agreed to receive the appeal of the judgment of invalidity pendent to the appeal of the preliminary injunction, on the basis that the preliminary injunction depends on the ruling of invalidity. We conclude that the on-sale issue could not be decided adversely to Gemmy on summary judgment, for disputed material facts, if viewed favorably to Gemmy, do not support the judgment. The summary judgment of invalidity is vacated. In view of our vacatur of the summary judgment, the preliminary injunction is also vacated.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Honeywell International, Inc. and Honeywell Intellectual Properties, Inc. (collectively “Honeywell”) appeal from the final decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granting summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent 5,164,879 in favor of ITT Industrials, Inc., ITT Automotive, Inc., TG North America Corporation, TG Fluid Systems USA Corporation, and A. Raymond, Inc. (collectively “ITT/TG”). Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., Civ. No. 02-73948 (E.D. Mich. April 27, 2005). Because the district court correctly construed the claim limitation “fuel system component” and determined that the accused products do not meet that limitation, we affirm its grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. We further conclude that under our modified construction of the claim limitation “electrically conductive fibers,” the accused products do not meet that limitation either, thereby providing a separate ground for affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc.

PROST, Circuit Judge.
Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) brought suit against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) alleging infringement of its patents relating to extended release formulations of clarithromycin. Abbott moved for a preliminary injunction against Teva on the grounds that Teva was infringing claims 2, 4, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,010,718 (“’718 patent”) and claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 6,551,616 (“’616 patent”). Teva resisted the motion primarily by arguing that substantial questions existed as to the validity of Abbott’s asserted claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The district court agreed that Teva had raised a substantial question as to the validity of claim 2 of the ’616 patent but it rejected Teva’s invalidity arguments as to the asserted claims of the ’718 patent. Accordingly, the district court granted Abbott’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Teva appealed. We have jurisdiction to review the district court’s order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(1).
On appeal, Teva has raised substantial issues as to the validity of each of the asserted claims relied upon for the preliminary injunction. We vacate the preliminary injunction.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Panduit Corp. v. HellermannTyton Corp.

LINN, Circuit Judge.
Panduit Corporation (“Panduit”) appeals from a final order dismissing its claims with prejudice after the district court granted HellermannTyton Corporation’s (“HellermannTyton”) motion for summary judgment that HellermannTyton did not breach provisions of the Settlement Agreement that ended a prior infringement suit involving U.S Patent No. 5,998,732 (“the ’732 patent”). See Panduit Corp. v. HellermannTyton Corp., No. 03 C 8100 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 22, 2005) (final order); Panduit Corp. v. HellermannTyton Corp., No. 03 C 8100 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2005) (summary judgment). Because no genuine issue of material fact exists and HellermannTyton is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Primos, Inc. v. Hunter's Specialties, Inc.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Hunter’s Specialties, Inc. and David Forbes (collectively “Hunter’s Specialties”) appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa of literal infringement, willfulness, and inducement of infringement as to U.S. Patent 5,520,567 and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as to U.S. Patent 5,415,578. Hunter’s Specialties also appeals from the court’s decision denying a motion for a new trial. Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc., No. C01-004 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 9, 2004) (“Final Judgment”). Because we affirm the district court’s claim construction of the term “engaging,” we also affirm the court’s judgment of literal
infringement of the ’567 patent. Because we conclude that the application of the doctrine of equivalents was proper, we affirm the court’s judgment of infringement of the ’578 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence, and the court’s adverse-inference jury instruction did not constitute prejudicial error, we affirm the court’s decision denying a new trial on those issues.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Communications, Inc.

MAYER, Circuit Judge.
M2 Software, Inc. (“M2 Software”) appeals the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, dismissing its opposition to M2 Communications, Inc.’s (“M2 Communications”) registration of M2 COMMUNICATIONS for interactive multimedia CD-ROMs containing information on the fields of health, pharmacy, and medicine. M2 Software, Inc. v. M2 Commc’ns, Inc., Opposition No. 91/158,118 (TTAB July 21, 2005) (“Board Opinion”). Because the board did not err in finding no likelihood of confusion, we affirm.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Pactiv Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co.

DYK, Circuit Judge.
Pactiv Corporation (“Pactiv”) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its declaratory judgment action against Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”), in which Pactiv sought a judgment of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 5,424,016, and 5,586,058 (the “’016 patent” and the “’058 patent” respectively). Because we agree with the district court’s determination that Pactiv’s claims are precluded by res judicata, we affirm.

Download the decision.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.