Dr. Marc Bosem seeks review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Bosem v. Musa Holdings, Inc., 8 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), on the ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with a decision of this Court in Argonaut Ins. Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212, 215 (Fla. 1985), on whether a plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on lost profits where the amount of damages was determined by the trial judge in the final judgment. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. In order to resolve the conflict between these cases, this Court must do nothing more than reassert its established precedent. For the reasons expressed below, we conclude that this Court‟s precedent has remained unchanged for over one century, and that prejudgment interest is a matter of right under the prevailing “loss theory” of recovery for pecuniary damages, i.e., damages for economic or tangible losses. Accordingly, we quash the Fourth District‟s decision in Bosem.
The Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd. and LMA North America, Inc. (collectively, LMA) appeal the district court’s summary judgment that the Aura40™, Au-raOnce™, and AuraStraight™ products made by Ambu A/S, Ambu Inc., and Ambu Ltd. (collectively, Ambu) did not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,156,100 (’100 patent) and that all claims were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. We conclude that the district court erred in its construction of the claim term “backplate.” Because its summary judg-ment of no infringement was predicated on this erroneous claim construction, we vacate. We further conclude that LMA has raised a genuine issue of material fact preclud-ing summary judgment on the issue of written descrip-tion, and we therefore vacate the court’s judgment of invalidity and remand for further proceedings.
U.S. Philips Corporation (Philips), Fujitsu Limited (Fujitsu), and LG Electronics, Inc. (LG) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The district court, on summary judgment, held that the Defendant, Netgear Inc. (Net-gear) did not infringe any of the asserted claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand.
By David KravetsLawmakers introduced legislation Monday that would let the Justice Department seek U.S. court orders against piracy websites anywhere in the world, and shut them down through the sites’ domain registration. The bipartisan legislation, dubbed the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act, amounts to the Holy Grail of intellectual-property enforcement. The recording industry and movie studios have been clamoring for such a capability since the George W. Bush administration. If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court for an injunction that would order a U.S. domain registrar or registry to stop resolving an infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to PirateBay.org, for example, would an error.
“In today’s global economy the internet has become the glue of international commerce –- connecting consumers with a wide array of products and services worldwide,” said Sen. Orin Hatch (R-Utah) in a statement announcing the bill. “But it’s also become a tool for online thieves to sell counterfeit and pirated goods, making hundreds of millions of dollars off of stolen American intellectual property.”
In this patent infringement action, plaintiffs American Medical Systems, Inc., and Laserscope appeal an order granting summary judgment of noninfringement to defendant Biolitec, Inc. The patent in suit, Laserscope’s U.S. Patent No. 6,986,764 (“the ’764 patent”), is entitled “Method and System for Photoselective Vaporization of the Prostate, and Other Tissue.” It claims various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation. The district court based its summary judgment order on its conclusion that Biolitec’s accused device does not perform “photoselective vaporization of tissue,” a term that is contained only in the preambles of the asserted claims. Because we conclude that the disputed preamble term does not limit the asserted claims, we reverse and remand.
Following a bench trial, the district court1 entered judgment for Myers Supply, Inc. on Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP’s claim for contributory trademark infringement. Earlier, the district court granted summary judgment to Myers, on Georgia-Pacific’s claim for tortious interference with contractual relationship. Georgia-Pacific appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.
The district court denied the motion to dismiss this patent infringement suit for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and certified the ruling for interlocutory appeal. We accepted the certified question, and now affirm the district court’s decision.
Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (collectively, Medtronic) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee granting summary judgment that Medtronic infringes the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,936,071 (the ’071 patent). Medtronic also appeals the court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims are not invalid for failure to satisfy the written description requirement and the court’s denial of its motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of obviousness, no willfulness, and no entitlement to lost profits. Further, Medtronic appeals the court’s order permanently enjoining Medtronic from using or selling any of the accused devices that are currently outside the U.S. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, re-verse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Matrix Laboratories, Ltd., Mylan Inc., Mylan Labora-tories, Inc., and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”) appeal from the final decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sustaining the validity of U.S. Patent 5,616,599 (“the ’599 patent”) under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm.
Baseload Energy, Inc. (“Baseload”) sought a declaratory judgment that U.S. Patent No. 6,781,254 (“the ’254 patent”) owned by Bryan W. Roberts (”Roberts”) was invalid and unenforceable. On summary judgment, the district court held that the terms of a 2008 Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) barred “all claims between the parties,” including the present action. See Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 654 F. Supp. 2d 21, 27 (D.D.C. 2009). We reverse, because we conclude that the language of the Settlement Agreement did not release either claims of infringement of the ’254 patent or the accompanying defenses of invalidity or unenforceability.