In an appeal from a judgment of the district court awarding 35 U.S.C. section146 priority of invention to the plaintiff, judgment is affirmed where the court's de novo review of a determination by the Board of Patents Appeal was proper under Section146.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in a liability trial for patent infringement, judgment is affirmed where the district court correctly held defendants jointly and severally liable for all damages and denied defendant's motion for leave to file a supplemental answer, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims, but reversed where it incorrectly granted prejudgment interest.
By Janet I. Tu
Seattle Times technology reporter
It seems not a week goes by these days without news of another patent battle or announcement: Microsoft reaching licensing agreements with various device manufacturers. Apple and various handset manufacturers filing suits and countersuits. Oracle suing Google over the use of Java in Android.
Not to mention barbed digs and jabs that company executives trade over blogs, Twitter and news releases.
After Microsoft and Samsung announced a patent-licensing agreement last month involving Google's Android operating system, Google issued a statement saying, in part: "This is the same tactic we've seen time and again from Microsoft. Failing to succeed in the smartphone market, they are resorting to legal measures to extort profit from others' achievements and hinder the pace of innovation."
Microsoft's PR chief Frank Shaw shot back via Twitter: "Let me boil down the Google statement ... from 48 words to 1: Waaaah."
So what gives? What's up with the spate of patent petulance?
The answer is that they're visible signs that technology companies' patent practices have evolved from using them to defend their own inventions to deploying them as a significant part of competitive strategies in the fast-growing mobile market.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying appellant's post-trial motion for entry of a permanent injunction in a patent infringement dispute involving windshield wiper technology, judgment is reversed where the court's erroneous application of law to evidence was an abuse of discretion.
In an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement by the district court in favor of both parties in their cross-claims of infringement of certain software products designed to track lost or stolen laptop computers, judgment is affirmed on the court's claim constructions and where it correctly granted plaintiff summary judgment, but reversed where issues of fact preclude summary judgment in defendant's favor.
In an action challenging the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision upholding an examiner’s ruling on reexamination that a patent was invalid as obvious, judgment is reversed where the Board relied on a new ground of rejection such that the appellant was entitled either to pursue the reexamination proceeding further before the examiner, or to seek reconsideration from the Board.
In an appeal from a judgment of non-infringement and non-invalidity in a dispute concerning claims to a power operated knife, judgment is affirmed as to the denial of JMOL or new trial on the issue of anticipation based on a prior claim and non-infringement, and reversed as to the court's denial of a new trial on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. section 315(c).
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's action for declarations of non-infringement and invalidity for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, judgment is reversed where the court incorrectly found no Article III controversy based in part on an existing licensing agreement which excluded licensed products from enforcement actions.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in a patent infringement action relating to balloon-expandable stents, judgment is affirmed because, as to one claim, defendants did not literally infringe of plaintiff's claim and where the court properly denied plaintiff JMOL on the issue of non-infringement by the reverse doctrine of equivalents, while rejecting the contention that two of defendants' claims are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
In an appeal from a judgment of patent infringement by the district court concerning a polymer that accelerates hemostasis, judgment is reversed where defendant has absolute intervening rights with respect to products manufactured before the date of reissue and remanded for a determination of whether defendant has equitable intervening rights with respect to products manufactured after the date of reissue, but dismissed as moot on the contention that subject patent as originally issued was invalid.