Previous month:
May 2012
Next month:
July 2012

WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. V. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC.

The facts of this case support the opposite inference. The inventors of the ’893 patent were introduced to WS-3 and WS-23 by a salesman for Sterling Organics, the distributor of the compounds, during the same sales call, and they were told that the two compounds were appro-priate for the same uses. Although the fact that WS-23 did not enjoy FEMA-GRAS listing at the time of the invention might have prevented Cadbury from marketing a chewing gum containing a combination of WS-23 and menthol, it would not have precluded the inventors from anticipating that WS-23 could be used as a substitute for WS-3. Thus, the inventors were on notice of the potential interchangeability of WS-23 and WS-3, yet they drafted the claims of the ’893 patent narrowly to recite certain N-substituted-p-menthane carboxamides, not a broader category of carboxamides that would include WS-23. The trial court therefore properly held that Cadbury could not expand the coverage of its patent to include WS-23 through the doctrine of equivalents.

Each party shall bear its own costs for this appeal.

AFFIRMED

Download WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. V. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

In deciding the present appeal, this court determined that the United States District Court for the District of Arizona (“trial court”) was correct in its judgment and affirmed all of the conclusions reached by the trial court. See Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., 670 F.3d 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The appellant, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”), timely filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. Therein, Gore again faulted the trial court’s willfulness analysis. Separately, an Amici Curiae brief in support of that petition argued that the objective prong of willfulness should be considered a question of law subject to de novo review on appeal. This court granted the petition for rehearing en banc and returned the matter to the panel for reconsideration, see En Banc Order, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc., No. 2010-1510 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2012), for the sole purpose of revisiting the issue of will-fulness and further explicating the standard of review applicable to it.

The court today reaffirms its opinion issued on February 10, 2012, except for section E and that portion of section F relating to Section 284 and 285 of Title 35 of the United States Code allowing for enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.1 The court vacates section E and the limited portion of section F relating to its prior discussion of willfulness. The briefs related to the petition for re-hearing present this court with a new question regarding the nature of the objective inquiry from In re Seagate Technology, LLC (“Seagate”), 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). The court agrees that the trial court failed to address the objective prong of willfulness as a separate legal test from Seagate’s subjective component. The court now holds that the threshold objective prong of the willfulness standard enunciated in Seagate is a ques-tion of law based on underlying mixed questions of law and fact and is subject to de novo review. The court remands the issue of willfulness so that the trial court may reconsider its denial of JMOL of no willful infringement in view of this holding. If the court grants the JMOL, it should then reconsider its decisions on enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees.

Download Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.

Toshiba Corporation accused Imation Corporation et al. (collectively, Appellees) of infringing claims of U.S. Patent nos. 5,892,751 (’751 patent) and 5,831,966 (’966 patent) relating to optical disc technology. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement for the asserted claims under both patents except for a de minimis claim of direct infringement that was later dismissed. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part and vacate-in-part the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement and remand.

Download Toshiba Corp. v. Imation Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

In re Bill of Lading

In this patent infringement action, R+L Carriers, Inc. (“R+L”) appeals the district court’s dismissal with preju-dice of its amended complaints and counterclaims against DriverTech LLC (“DriverTech”), Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (“ACS”), PeopleNet Communications Corp. (“PeopleNet”), Intermec Technologies Corp. (“Intermec”), Microdea, Inc. (“Microdea”), and Qualcomm, Inc. (“Qualcomm”).1 R+L alleged that the Appellees each indirectly infringed United States Patent No. 6,401,078 (filed Apr. 3, 2000) (“the ’078 patent”). The district court dismissed the amended complaints because it believed they failed to state a claim to relief that was plausible on its face as required by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Because we agree that R+L failed to state a claim of contributory infringement against the Appellees, but find that R+L adequately stated a claim of induced infringement, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part and remand.

Download In re Bill of Lading

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Hollmer v. Harari

This case is a second appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) involving Patent Interference No. 105,606(JL) between Eliyahou Harari and Sanjay Mehrotra (collectively “Harari”), named inventors on pending U.S. Patent Application No. 09/310,880 (“’880 application”), and Shane C. Hollmer and Lee E. Cleveland (collectively “Hollmer”), named inventors on U.S. Patent No. 5,828,601 (“’601 patent”). The Board entered judgment against Hollmer after finding that Harari’s ’880 application was entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Harari’s U.S. Patent Application No. 07/337,566 (“’566 application”) and thus preceded the date of conception for Hollmer’s ’601 patent. Because the Board misinterpreted our previous decision in Harari v. Hollmer, 602 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Harari I”), in finding that continuity was maintained in the chain of priority between the ’566 application and the ’880 application involved in the interference, we reverse the Board’s decision and remand.
Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Tire Engineering and Dist. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co.

Alpha, a domestic producer of mining tires, sued Al Dobowi and Linglong, foreign corporations. Alpha alleged that the defendants conspired to steal its tire blueprints, produce infringing tires, and sell them to entities that had formerly purchased products from Alpha. A jury found in favor of Alpha on all claims submitted to it, awarding the company $26 million in damages. The district court upheld the damages award against the defendants’ post-trial challenges. AlDobowi and Linglong appeal, contesting the verdict and the district court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.

We initially hold that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Al Dobowi and Linglong. We affirm the district court’s judgment that Al Dobowi and Linglong are liable to Alpha under the Copyright Act and for conversion under Virginia law, but we dismiss the remaining theories of liability submitted to the jury. We affirm the jury’s damages award. As a final matter, we vacate the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees.

Download Tire Engineering and Dist. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.

Cipla Ltd. (“Cipla”) joins with Velcera, Inc. and Fido-Pharm, Inc. (collectively, “Velcera”) in appealing from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia in favor of Merial Ltd. and Merial SAS (collectively, “Merial”) holding Cipla in contempt for violating an earlier injunction and holding Velcera in contempt for acting in concert with Cipla to violate that injunction. Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., No. 3:07-CV-125 (CDL), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65639, 2011 WL 2489753 (M.D. Ga. June 21, 2011) (“Contempt Order”). For reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Download Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Package Concepts & Materials, Inc.’s (“PCM”) motion for summary judgment on invalidity and non-infringement against Neil Mintz, Marcus Mintz, and Jif-Pak Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, “Mintz”). This court affirms the non-infringement determination and vacates the invalidity holding with a remand to the district court for further proceedings.

Download Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.