Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (“Halliburton”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLC, No. 6:05-CV-155 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2006) (“Judgment Order”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of M-I LLC (“M-I”), holding that independent claims 1-3 and 5 and their asserted dependent claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,887,832 B2 (“the ’832 patent”) were invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. We heard oral argument on November 7, 2007. Because a claim term in each asserted claim lacked clear meaning to the ordinary artisan, we affirm.
This is a patent infringement case relating to chimeric genes. Plaintiff-Appellee Monsanto Co. (“Monsanto”) brought a declaratory judgment action against Defendant-Appellant Bayer Bioscience N.V. (“Bayer”) challenging the validity and unenforceablity of four Bayer patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,545,565 (“the ’565 patent”), 5,767,372 (“the ’372 patent”), 6,107,546 (“the ’546 patent”), and 5,254,799 (“the ’799 patent”), and asserting that Monsanto’s transgenic corn products did not infringe these patents. Bayer appeals a final judgment, issued after jury trial, declaring the asserted claims of the ’565 patent invalid and non-infringed. In addition, Bayer appeals the final judgment of the district court that the four patents are unenforceable for inequitable conduct. We affirm the district court’s conclusion that the ’565 patent is unenforceable for inequitable conduct and hold that the district court had jurisdiction to declare the ’372, ’546, and ’799 patents unenforceable. Accordingly, we do not reach the other issues raised by Bayer on appeal.
Abbott Laboratories (Abbott) appeals on a multitude of grounds the judgment entered against it by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin for infringement of Innogenetics, N.V.’s (Innogenetics) U.S. Patent No. 5,846,704 (the ’704 patent). We reverse and remand for a new trial the district court’s judgment as a matter of law that claim 1 of the ’704 patent was not anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,580,718 (the Resnick patent). We also vacate the permanent injunction granted against Abbott. As for the whole host of other issues that Abbott raises on appeal, we find no reversible error and affirm the lower court’s judgment in those respects. Innogenetics cross-appeals the district court’s judgment as a matter of law that Abbott’s infringement was not willful. Under the standards recently articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), we also affirm that aspect of the lower court’s judgment.
Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc. (Baldwin) sued Siebert, Inc. (Siebert) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,976 (the Reissue patent) and U.S. Patent No. 5,974,976 (the ’976 patent). After conducting a Markman hearing, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ultimately granted Siebert’s motions for summary judgment of non-infringement of both patents. Because the district court erred in its construction of some of the disputed claim terms, this court affirms-in-part, reverses-in-part, and remands.
Plaintiffs-counter defendants-appellants, Jack Aronowitz, Health-Chem Diagnostics LLC, and Leon Services LLC (collectively “Aronowitz”), appeal an “Omnibus Order” by the district court for the Southern District of Florida addressing a number of post-trial motions. The order (1) set aside the jury verdict that had been rendered in Aronowitz’s favor as to his first breach of contract claim against defendant-counter claimant-appellee Health-Chem Corporation (“Health- Chem”); (2) reduced the damages awarded with respect to the second breach of contract claim against Health-Chem from $2.6 million to nominal damages of $1; (3) upheld the jury’s verdict against Aronowitz on Health-Chem’s counterclaim for trademark infringement; and (4) conditionally granted a new trial to Health-Chem in the event the court’s primary rulings were reversed. We AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for a new trial as to damages for breach of the 2003 contract.
To summarize, the award of damages is affirmed, and so is the denial of all other relief sought by Allan Block with the exception of the refusal to allow it to prove damages with regard to the two claims that the judge kept from the jury; as to those, the judgment is vacated and the case remanded for a trial on damages limited to those claims.
We trust, though, that we have provided enough guidance to enable this suit to be settled without further proceedings. The remaining stakes are small, and it is time the war between these pertinacious antagonists was brought to a peaceful end.
Plaintiff NCR Corporation (“NCR”) appeals the order of the district court1 compelling NCR and defendant Korala Associates Ltd. (“KAL”) to arbitrate NCR’s claims against KAL, pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 2062, part of Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act, see 9 U.S.C. § 201, et seq., which implements the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, 330 U.N.T.S. 38.
This is an appeal from a single judgment of the district court in two cases, both brought by CytoLogix Corp. against Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. One of the two district court cases, No. 01-10178, was a patent infringement action; the other, No. 01-12231, was an antitrust/misappropriation action. After two trials, both combining claims from each action, the district court entered final judgment on all claims. Although there was no formal order of consolidation before those trials, the district court later entered an order stating that, in actuality, the cases were consolidated for trial and ordering that they be consolidated, nunc pro tunc, as of the commencement of the first trial. CytoLogix then filed two identical notices of appeal from the consolidated judgment, one in this court and one in the Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Ventana has now moved to dismiss the appeal to this court for lack of jurisdiction and has also sought sanctions under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. CytoLogix opposes dismissal and sanctions but concedes that its appeal of the disposition of its patent claims should be transferred to the
Federal Circuit. In the alternative, CytoLogix requests that the entire appeal be transferred to the Federal Circuit rather than dismissed. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the appeal
but deny sanctions.
This case requires us to determine how the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1332, applies to karaoke devices that enable individuals to sing along to recordings of musical compositions, which is a matter of first impression in this circuit. In the district court, Plaintiff-Appellant Leadsinger, Inc., a karaoke device manufacturer, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against music publishers, Defendants-Appellees BMG Music Publishing and Zomba Enterprises,Inc. (“BMG”). Leadsinger sought a declaration that it is entitled to print or display song lyrics in real time with song recordings as long as it obtains a compulsory mechanical license under 17 U.S.C. § 115, or that it is entitled to do so under the fair use doctrine, 17 U.S.C. § 107. The district court dismissed the complaint without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. We affirm.
This appeal requires us to clarify what an owner of a federally registered trademark needs to establish in order to mount an infringement action against a user of the trademarked name on goods or services that are not the same as those specified in the owner’s trademark registration. Applied Information Sciences Corp. (AIS) owns the trademark “SmartSearch” for certain computer related search functions, and claims that eBay, Inc. (eBay) uses the name “Smart Search” for its Internet auction website, which AIS contends will be confused with its “SmartSearch” product. The district court rejected the claim, granting summary judgment to eBay, and AIS now appeals. eBay cross-appeals the district court’s order denying attorney’s fees to eBay as the prevailing party. We affirm both the district court’s grant of summary judgment and the denial of attorney’s fees.