Previous month:
April 2012
Next month:
June 2012

IN RE SUONG-HYU HYOM

This appeal arises from the examination of Reissue Application No. 10/643,674 (“the reissue application”), which stemmed from U.S. Patent No. 6,168,626 (“the ’626 patent”). During prosecution, the examiner rejected all claims of the reissue application on two independent grounds: (1) obviousness over U.S. Patent No. 5,030,402 (“Zachariades”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,886,056 (“Kitamaru”), and (2) impermissible recapture of subject matter surrendered during the original prosecution under 35 U.S.C. § 251. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection on both grounds. We agree with the Board that the claims of the reissue application would have been obvious in light of the prior art. We therefore affirm on that basis, and we do not address the portion of the Board’s decision regarding the recapture issue.

Download IN RE SUONG-HYU HYOM

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

Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

Leader Technologies, Inc. (“Leader”) appeals from the district court’s final judgment in favor of Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). The judgment follows a jury trial in which the jury found that Facebook proved that claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 21, 23, 25, 31, and 32 (the “asserted claims”) of Leader’s U.S. Patent 7,139,761 (“the ’761 patent”) were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). After trial, the district court denied Leader’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial on the invalidity issues. Leader Techs., Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D. Del. 2011). Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Leader offered for sale and publicly demonstrated the claimed invention prior to the critical date and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Leader’s motion for a new trial, we affirm.

Download Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.

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

In re Montgomery

Hugh Edward Montgomery, John Francis Martin, and Jorge Daniel Erusalimsky (collectively, “Montgomery”) appeal from a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejection of claims 42, 43, and 45 of U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/118,824 (the “’824 application”) as anticipated. See Ex parte Montgomery (“Rehearing Decision”), No. 2011-000170, 2011 WL 514316 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 10, 2011); Ex parte Montgomery (“Board Decision”), No. 2011-000170, 2010 WL 4719114 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 18, 2010). We affirm.

Download In re Montgomery

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

In re Youman

Roger Youman and Marney Morris (collectively, “applicants”) appeal from a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection of claims 24-27, 29-43, and 45-55 in the applicants’ reissue patent application under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Ex parte Youman, No. 2010-007029, 2010 WL 3503790 (B.P.A.I. Sept. 7, 2010) (“Board Decision”). Because the Board did not properly apply the recapture rule’s three-step analysis, we vacate and remand.

Download In re Youman

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

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, the “Defendants”) appeal from the final decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey sustaining the validity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent 5,006,528 (the “’528 patent) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and under the doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting. We affirm.

Download Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.

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

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC (“ISE”) ap-peals from a final judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, holding that the trading system of Chicago Board Options Ex-change, Inc. (“CBOE”) does not infringe ISE’s United States Patent No. 6,618,707 (“the ’707 Patent”). CBOE cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its motions for leave to amend its Complaint. Because the district court erred in construing “system memory means,” “matching,” and “automated exchange,” and did not abuse its discre-tion in denying CBOE’s motions for leave to amend its Complaint, we AFFIRM-IN-PART, REVERSE-IN-PART, VACATE-IN-PART, and REMAND.

Download Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC

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

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores y Editores de Musica Latinoamericana

For the reasons stated, the decisions of the district court are affirmed.

As between BPPR and LAMCO/ACEMLA, no costs of appeal are awarded. GVLI is awarded its costs of appeal.

Download Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores y Editores de Musica Latinoamericana

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

Gaylord v. US

Frank Gaylord appeals from the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims awarding him $5,000 for the United States Postal Service’s copyright infringement of his statues. Because the trial court incorrectly limited Mr. Gaylord’s damages to the Postal Service’s highest past license payment and denied prejudgment interest, we vacate and remand for a determination of the market value of the Postal Service’s infringing use and an award of prejudgment interest.

Download Gaylord v. US

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

In re Baxter International, Inc.

Baxter International Inc. (“Baxter”) appeals from the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”) affirming the examiner’s rejections of claims 26–31 of U.S. Patent 5,247,434 (“the ’434 patent”) for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). See Ex parte Bax-ter Int’l, Inc., No. 2009-006493, 2010 WL 1048980 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 18, 2010) (“Board Decision”); Ex parte Baxter Int’l, Inc., No. 2009-006493, 2010 WL 3032865 (B.P.A.I. July 20, 2010) (“Board Rehearing Decision”). Because the Board did not err in determining that those claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, we affirm.

Download In re Baxter International, Inc.

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

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. While the appeal presents substantial issues of law and fact, the decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction is one that is committed to the discretion of the district court, which makes the appellant’s task in over-turning that decision a difficult one. With respect to three of the four patents at issue in this appeal, we conclude that the appellant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion, and we therefore affirm the denial of preliminary injunctive relief. With respect to the fourth patent, we conclude that the district court committed legal error in one important respect, so we vacate that portion of the court’s order and remand for further proceedings in that part of the case.

Download Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

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