Xicor LLC appeals a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Califor-nia granting a declaratory judgment in favor of Greenli-ant Systems, Inc. The district court entered the final judgment pursuant to the parties’ agreement that the summary judgment order in Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. Xicor LLC (“SST”), 776 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2011), which held that claims 12 and 13 of reissued U.S. Patent No. RE38,370 (“the RE’370 patent”) were invalid under the rule against recapture, “applies equally in this case and should be entered herein.” See Greenliant Sys-tems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, No. 11-CV-0631, slip op. at 3 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2011). The remaining claims were dismissed by agreement of the parties. We affirm.
These appeals stem from a patent infringement action brought by ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. (ActiveVideo) against Verizon Communications, Inc. et al. (Verizon). Verizon counterclaimed that ActiveVideo infringed cer-tain of its patents. After trial, a jury found that Verizon infringed four ActiveVideo patents and that ActiveVideo infringed two Verizon patents and awarded damages to both parties. Following trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction against Verizon but delayed en-forcement of the injunction for six months during which Verizon was ordered to pay a sunset royalty. On appeal, Verizon challenges the infringement finding and damages award as well as the permanent injunction and sunset royalty. Verizon also appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity as to a third Verizon patent and its grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) preventing Verizon’s invalidity defenses from reaching the jury. ActiveVideo cross-appeals the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement and its grant of JMOL preventing ActiveVideo’s invalidity defenses from reaching the jury. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand.
Appellants Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., and APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that U.S. Patent 5,344,932 (the “’932 patent”) is not invalid for obvious-ness-type double patenting. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Meds. Inc., No. 08-335-GMS, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83124, 2011 WL 3236037 (D. Del. July 28, 2011). We affirm.
Complainant-Appellant, Amkor Technology, Inc. (“Amkor”), appeals the determination of the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) that Amkor’s U.S. Patent No. 6,433,277 (“’277 Patent”) is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). The respondents in the Commission investigation below, Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd, Carsem Semi-conductor Sdn Bhd, and Carsem, Inc. (collectively, “Carsem”), intervene. Because the Commission applied an erroneous legal standard, this court reverses the Commission’s determination on prior invention under § 102(g)(2). This court also declines to affirm the Com-mission’s invalidity determination on the alternative grounds raised by Carsem.
AFTG-TG LLC (“AFTG”) and Phillip M. Adams & As-sociates, LLC (“Adams”) (collectively “AFTG”) appeal the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming’s dismissal of defendants Pegatron Corporation (“Pega-tron”), Pegatron Technology Service, Inc. (“PTS”), Unihan, ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUSTeK”), and ASUS Com-puter International (“ASUS”) for lack of personal jurisdic-tion. Because the record and pleadings demonstrate insufficient contacts with the forum state, this court affirms.
This patent case, presenting myriad issues, includes an appeal from a jury’s finding of willful infringement of four patents, a cross-appeal of the trial court’s denial of various post-trial motions, and a separate cross-appeal of a denial of sanctions and attorneys’ fees. On the appeal, we affirm the jury’s finding of infringement, affirm the jury’s finding of no anticipation of most, but not all, claims, and we vacate the jury’s damages award and remand for a new trial on damages. On the cross-appeal, we remand for a proper determination of the post-trial motions at issue. As to the separate cross-appeal, we affirm the denial of fees and sanctions.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Janet Bond Arterton, Judge) granting defendants' motion to dismiss. We conclude that the district court erred in deciding that because the architectural drawings at issue did not contain a level of detail sufficient to enable construction of homes based on them, they were not protected by the Copyright Act. We also conclude that the drawings are sufficiently original to receive protection as "pictorial, graphic, [or] sculptural works," 17 U.S.C.§ 102(a)(5), under the Copyright Act, and we reverse the judgment of the district court insofar as it held otherwise. Because the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act based on its conclusion that the drawings were not protected by copyright, we vacate its dismissal of those claims and to that extent remand the case to the district court.
Reversed in part; vacated and remanded in part.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissed DuoProSS Meditech Corporation’s counterclaims for cancellation of two trademark registrations owned by Inviro Medical Devices, Ltd., after the Board concluded that DuoProSS failed to prove that the marks are merely descriptive when used with the goods recited in Inviro’s registrations. Inviro Med. Devices Ltd. v. DuoProSS Meditech Corp., No. 92046702, Dkt. 52 (TTAB Apr. 5, 2011) (“Board op.”). We reverse the Board’s decision because the Board failed to consider one of the marks as a whole, unduly focusing on only one portion of it; the Board failed to make adequate findings to support its conclusion that DuoProSS failed to prove descriptiveness; and the Board erroneously concluded that puffing could render the marks more than descriptive.
Appellant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) appeals a final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) in a reexamination in which claim 18 of Rambus’s U.S. Patent No. 6,034,918 (“’918 Patent”) was found invalid as anticipated. Because substantial evidence supports the PTO’s determination that claim 18, as correctly construed reads on the “memory module” in the prior art iAPX 432 Interconnect Architecture Reference Manual published by Intel Corp. in 1982 (“iAPX Manual”), this court affirms.
Wake Forest University Health Sciences (“Wake Forest”) appeals the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of invalidity for obviousness. In granting Smith & Nephew, Inc.’s (“S&N”) motion for JMOL, the district court overturned the jury’s determination that S&N had failed to prove that the asserted claims of the patents in suit were obvious. We conclude that, on the basis of the jury’s factual findings, S&N failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the claims were obvious. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.