Previous month:
April 2013
Next month:
June 2013

Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. v. Warrick

In this copyright infringement case, Enterprise Management Limited, Inc., and Mary Lippitt (collectively Lippitt) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Donald Warrick. Lippitt contends, contrary to the district court’s holding, she demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement. We agree.

Download Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. v. Warrick
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods.Co.

Douglas Dynamics, LLC (Douglas) sued Buyers Products Co. (Buyers) for infringement of several patents related to snowplow mounting assemblies. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,700 (’700 Patent) in favor of Buyers. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods. Co., 747 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (W.D. Wis. 2010). Following a jury verdict that found U.S. Patent No. 5,353,530 (’530 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,944,978 (’978 Patent) valid and infringed, the district court denied Douglas a permanent injunction and assigned an ongoing royalty. Because the district court applied an erroneous claim construction in granting summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 45 of the ’700 Patent, this court reverses. This court also reverses the denial of a permanent injunction against continued infringement of the ’978 Patent, and remands for entry of a permanent injunction consistent with this opinion. This court also vacates the district court’s ongoing royalty rate for the ’530 Patent and the ’978 Patent, and remands to establish a new pre-injunction ongoing royalty rate consistent with this opinion. Because the ‘530 patent has expired, any permanent injunction as to this patent is now moot, and the ongoing royalty ceases to apply after the date of expiration.

Download Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Prods.Co.

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

Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Auto. USA, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne and F2C2 Systems S.A.S. (collectively “AHG”) filed suit against defendants Broetje Automation USA Inc. and Brötje Automation GmbH (collectively “Broetje”), asserting counts of patent infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Ateliers de la Haute- Garonne is a French company whose employees include Jean-Marc Auriol and Philippe Bornes, the inventors of the patents in suit.

AHG asserted two patents, United States Patent No. 5,011,339 (“the ’339 patent”) issued April 30, 1991, and No. 5,143,216 (“the ’216 patent”) issued September 1, 1992, both entitled “Process for Distribution of Pieces such as Rivets, and Apparatus for carrying out the Process.” AHG alleged infringement of claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 of the ’339 patent and claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’216 patent. The patents claim priority to a French application filed on December 8, 1988, and relate to the dispensing of objects such as rivets through a pressurized tube with grooves along its inner surface, to provide a rapid and smooth supply of properly positioned rivets for such uses as the assembly of metal parts of aircraft. The invention “permits dispensing a very great number of pieces without risk of jamming in the tube and with a precise guiding permitting maintaining the alignment of the axes of the pieces.” Abstract, ’339 patent, ’216 patent.

On Broetje’s motion for summary judgment, the district court ruled, on September 26, 2011, that the claims in suit are invalid for failure to disclose the best mode of carrying out the invention, as required by 35 USC §112 ¶1.1 Judgment was entered under Federal Rule 54(b); the court did not decide the other issues in the complaint, except for, on October 13, 2011, rejecting Broetje’s argument that AHG abandoned the ’339 patent by failing to pay the issue fee.

AHG appeals the judgment of invalidity on best mode grounds. Broetje cross-appeals, stating that the patent was abandoned. We reverse the judgment of invalidity, affirm that the patent was not abandoned, and remand for determination of the remaining issues.

Download Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Auto. USA, Inc.

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

Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. v. United States

Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. (Bestpak) appeals from a final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade concerning its importation of narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from China. Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co. v. United States, 825 F. Supp. 2d 1346 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2012) (Bestpak II). The Court of International Trade sustained the United States Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) calculation of Bestpak’s separate rate margin using a simple average of a de minimis and an adverse facts available margin, yielding a rate of 123.83%. Because substantial evidence does not support the 123.83% rate, this court vacates and remands.

Download Yangzhou Bestpak Gifts & Crafts Co., Ltd. v. United States

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

Dey,L.P. v. Sunovion Pharma, Inc.

During the late 1990s and 2000s, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and the Dey plaintiffs (Dey, L.P.; Dey, Inc.; and Mylan, Inc.) were simultaneously developing pharmaceutical products to treat lung disease. Sunovion filed a patent application, followed by an application to test its products in human subjects. It then received a patent and held clinical trials, all before ultimately releasing a commercial product. Dey likewise filed a series of patent applications, received several patents, ran human subject trials, and released a commercial product. Dey’s patent applications were filed after Sunovion’s, and its patents were issued after consideration of Sunovion’s patent.

When Dey sued Sunovion for patent infringement, Sunovion argued, and the district court agreed, that some of Dey’s patents were invalid because a Sunovion clinical trial in which Sunovion tested its own product constituted a prior public use of Dey’s inventions within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).1 In that respect, this case is unusual. To the extent the public use bar is raised in the context of clinical trials, it normally entails a party defending its own clinical trials against the charge that the trials constituted a public use of the same party’s invention. Here, by contrast, Sunovion asserts that a drug formulation that was tested in its own clinical trial anticipated Dey’s inventions and was accessible to the public, thus invalidating the later-issued Dey patents. Although the parties’ dispute would seem to present a classic issue of priority, it comes to us as a public use dispute, not a priority contest, and we must apply public use principles to resolve it. Doing so, we conclude that Sunovion has not shown that it is entitled to summary judgment based on its assertion that its use of formulations meeting the limitations of Dey’s later-issued patents constituted a public use of Dey’s inventions within the meaning of section 102(b). We therefore reverse the grant of summary judgment for Sunovion.

Download Dey,L.P. v. Sunovion Pharma, Inc.

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

Aventis Pharma, Inc. v. Amino Chem., Ltd.

Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (AMRI) (collectively “Appellants”) appeal a stipulated judgment of noninfringement entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The parties stipulated to noninfringement following the district court’s Markman opinion of January 13, 2011, which consolidated numerous patent infringement cases and construed terms of AMRI’s U.S. Patent No. 5,750,703 (“the ’703 patent”), among others. Because we conclude that the district court’s Markman opinion misinterpreted claim terms of the ’703 patent, we reverse and remand.

Download Aventis Pharma, Inc. v. Amino Chem., Ltd.

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

Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.

Defendant IDT Corporation appeals from the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas determining that certain of IDT’s systems infringed claims 57 and 58 of U.S. Patent No. 6,000,608 (“the ’608 patent”), and that these claims were not invalid. Plaintiff Alexsam, Inc. cross-appeals from the court’s judgment determining that certain other systems were licensed under claims 57 and 58 of the ’608 patent.

We affirm the judgment of no invalidity. We reverse the jury’s finding of infringement with regard to IDT’s Walgreens and EWI systems, but affirm the judgment of infringement with regard to IDT’s miscellaneous systems based on the district court’s discovery sanction. On the cross-appeal, we affirm the judgment of noninfringement with regard to IDT’s SafeNet systems based on the license defense.

Download Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.

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

Forrester Envt.l Servs., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Techs.,Inc.

Plaintiffs Forrester Environmental Services, Inc. and Keith E. Forrester (collectively “Forrester”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The district court granted summary judgment for defendant Wheelabrator Technologies, Inc. (“Wheelabrator”) regarding Forrester’s business tort claims based on New Hampshire law. Forrester contends that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over its state law claims and, in the alternative, that the district court erred on the merits.

We conclude that the district court lacked subjectmatter jurisdiction over Forrester’s claims. We therefore vacate the district court judgment and remand to the district court with instructions to remand the case to New Hampshire state court.

Download Forrester Envt.l Servs., Inc. v. Wheelabrator Techs.,Inc.

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

CLS Bank, Int'l v Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.

Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute. AFFIRMED

Download CLS Bank, Int'l v Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.

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

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Genentech, Inc.

This case requires us to determine whether, based on a final judgment in the United States that a patent is not infringed, a party is entitled to an injunction preventing the patent owner from proceeding in a previously-filed foreign arbitration of a license to that patent. We conclude that under Ninth Circuit law and the facts of this case, the injunction is not warranted. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of the injunction.

Download Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Genentech, Inc.

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