Intellectual Property and Tech Law Reports

Paragon Solutions, LLC. v. Timex Corp.

Paragon Solutions, LLC (“Paragon”) appeals from a final judgment of noninfringement in favor of Timex Corporation (“Timex”) in a suit alleging that certain Timex products, including Timex’s Bodylink watches, infringed Paragon’s U.S. Patent No. 6,736,759 (the “’759 patent”). Following claim construction, the parties stipulated that the accused products did not infringe, and the district court entered the final judgment of noninfringement on the stipulation. Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., No. 1:06-CV-677 (S.D. Ohio July 10, 2008) (“Final Judgment”); Paragon Solutions, LLC v. Timex Corp., No. 1:06-CV-677 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 23, 2008) (“Claim Construction Op.”). Because we conclude that the district court’s constructions of the claim terms “data acquisition unit” and “display unit” were incorrect, and because we reject Timex’s asserted alternative basis for affirmance based on the claim term “displaying real-time data,” we vacate and remand.

Download Paragon Solutions, LLC. v. Timex Corp.

Corebrace, LLC. v. Star Seismic LLC

CoreBrace LLC (“CoreBrace”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Utah dismissing its claims for breach of a patent license agreement and for patent infringement. See Corebrace LLC v. Star Seismic LLC, No. 2:08-cv-11, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55471 (D. Utah July 18, 2008). Because the court did not err in concluding that Star Seismic LLC’s (“Star’s”) license to make, use, and sell the patented product carried with it an implied license to have the product made by a third party, we affirm.

Download Corebrace, LLC. v. Star Seismic LLC

Epistar Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

that Epistar Corporation (“Epistar”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,008,718 (“the ’718 patent”). In reaching this determination, the Commission estopped Epistar from challenging the validity of the ’718 patent. The Commission also construed the claim terms “transparent window layer” and “substrate” of claims 1 and 6. After finding infringement, the Commission issued a limited exclusion order (“LEO”) prohibiting the importation of Epistar’s downstream light emitting diode (“LED”) products, regardless of the manufacturer or importer of these products. Because the Commission erred in estopping Epistar from arguing invalidity of the ’718 patent when asserted against its products, but correctly construed the claim terms, this court affirms–in–part, reverses–in–part, and remands to the ITC with instructions to permit reconsideration of validity arguments. This court also vacates the LEO and remands to the Commission for reconsideration.

Download Epistar Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Linear Technology Corporation (“Linear”) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B), alleging that Advanced Analogic Technologies, Inc. (“AATI”) imported and/or sold for importation certain electronic voltage regulators that infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,580,258 (“the ’258 patent”). See In re Certain Voltage Regulators, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, 71 Fed. Reg. 14,545 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Mar. 22, 2006) (“Notice of Investigation”). Linear now appeals the Commission’s final determination, ruling that certain AATI imported voltage regulators do not infringe asserted claims 2, 3, 34, and 35 of the ’258 patent and that claim 35 is invalid as anticipated by a device made by Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“the MAX782”). In re Certain Voltage Regulators, No. 337-TA-564, slip op. (Int’l Trade Comm’n Oct. 19, 2007) (“Final Determination”). In addition, AATI cross-appeals the Commission’s ruling that one of its imported voltage regulators infringes asserted claims 2, 3, and 34 and that asserted claims 2, 3, and 34 are not invalid as anticipated. Id. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.

Download Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH and ERBE USA, Inc. (collectively “ERBE”) commenced proceedings before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 alleging that Canady Technology, LLC and Canady Technology Germany GmbH (collectively “Canady”) engaged in contributory and induced infringement of claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 35, 37, 38, 39, and 41 of U.S. Patent No. 5,720,745 (“’745 Patent”). These claims are drawn to an electrosurgical device and method of coagulating tissue using an endoscope with a plurality of “working channels.” We hold that the ITC correctly construed “working channel” and correctly found that ERBE presented no evidence of direct infringement of the asserted claims by Canady’s customers. Thus, Canady could not have engaged in contributory or induced infringement of the asserted claims. We affirm.

Download Erbe Elektromedizin GMBH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.

Plaintiff-Appellant Autogenomics, Inc. (Autogenomics) sued Defendant-Appellee Oxford Gene Technology Limited (Oxford) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of claims 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,054,270 (the ’270 patent). The district court granted Oxford’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech., Ltd., No. SACV 07-846-MRP (C.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2008). Autogenomics appeals this ruling, as well as the district court’s denial of jurisdictional discovery. Because the district court possessed neither general nor specific personal jurisdiction over Oxford, and because the court did not abuse its discretion by denying jurisdictional discovery, we affirm.

Download Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.

Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.

In this case, the same patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,935,507 (the ’507 patent), occasions litigation in both the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Virginia District Court granted the motion of Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively Lupin) for summary judgment of noninfringement. In the other case, the Illinois District Court denied a preliminary injunction to Abbott Laboratories, the exclusive licensee of the ’507 patent, based on the claim construction from the Eastern District of Virginia.

Because the Eastern District of Virginia correctly construed the claims of the ’507 patent and correctly discerned no genuine issues of material fact on literal infringement of claims 2-5 or infringement by equivalents of claims 1-5, this court affirms its partial summary judgment of noninfringement. Likewise, this court affirms the Northern District of Illinois’ denial of Abbott’s motion for a preliminary injunction, based in large part on the same correct claim construction.

Download Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.

Procter & Gamble v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in favor of The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) in three cases upholding the validity of P&G’s U.S. Patent 5,583,122 (the “’122 patent”). Procter & Gamble Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 536 F. Supp. 2d 476 (D. Del. 2008). After a bench trial and a stipulation for judgment in the related cases, the district court rejected Teva’s invalidity defenses of obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting. We affirm.

Download

Atlanta Pharma & Wyeth v. Teva

Plaintiffs-Appellants Altana Pharma AG and Wyeth (collectively, “Altana”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denying a preliminary injunction. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.

Download

Terronics Development v. Material Sciences Co

In this diversity action, Terronics Development Corporation (TDC) sues Material Sciences Corporation (MSC) for breach of contract, seeking damages and the return of certain patents TDC had assigned to MSC. The district court granted MSC’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. We affirm the dismissal of TDC’s damages claims, but reverse the dismissal of TDC’s claim seeking the reassignment of its patents.

Download