Over a century ago, Mark Twain lamented that "[o]nly one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain, The Complete Works of Mark Twain: Mark Twain's Notebook 381 (Albert Bigelow Paine ed., 1935). We fear that Twain's deity would fare little better with the tangled skein of copyright and contractual claims presented by the plaintiffs in this case. Confining our inquiry to the arguments seasonably raised before the district court and to the factual background at the time of summary judgment, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying the plaintiffs' subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Lovely Skin, Inc. (“Lovely Skin”) brought a four-count complaint against Ishtar Skin Care Products, LLC (“Ishtar”), alleging trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, and common law unfair competition and injury to business reputation in violation of Nebraska law. Ishtar counterclaimed, seeking cancellation of the registrations of Lovely Skin’s two trademarks. After a bench trial, the district court canceled the registrations and entered judgment for Ishtar on all four counts of Lovely Skin’s complaint. Lovely Skin appeals. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the district court’s judgment canceling Lovely Skin’s trademark registrations and otherwise affirm its judgment in favor of Ishtar.
Becton, Dickinson and Company (Becton) and Nova Biomedical Corporation (Nova) appeal the denial of vari- ous fees sought based on an eight-year long patent in- fringement suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving patents owned by Therasense, Inc. (now known as Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and Abbott Laboratories (collectively, Abbott). Be- cause this court agrees with the district court that Becton and Nova are not entitled to fees on fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment fees calculated specifically from the date the district court deemed the case excep- tional, this court affirms.
Danisco US Inc. (“Danisco”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing Danisco’s declaratory judgment action against Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc. (collectively “Novozymes”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Danisco US Inc. v. Novo- zymes A/S, No. 12-4502, 2013 WL 2351723 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2013) (unpublished). Because we conclude that the totality of the circumstances establishes a justiciable controversy, we reverse and remand.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
Plaintiff GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GSK”) sued Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc.–Florida (collectively, “Defendants”). Invoking 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), GSK alleged that drug products containing the molecule dutas- teride that Defendants propose to market fall within claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,565,467, which covers dutas- teride and its pharmaceutically acceptable solvates. All Defendants stipulated to infringement, which is no longer an issue, but alleged that the asserted claims were invalid for anticipation, lack of utility, lack of enablement, and inadequacy of the written description. After a three-day bench trial, the district court issued an opinion concluding that Defendants did not prove the asserted claims invalid. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., No. 11-CV-046, 2013 WL 4082232 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2013). Defendants appeal the rejection of their written- description challenge. Their appeal presents only one contention—that “solvate” is not adequately described, whether construed as Defendants urge or as the district court construed it. We affirm, without resolving the claim-construction dispute.
The district court granted summary judgment of non- infringement. We conclude that the district court made errors in at least one claim construction underly- ing its non-infringement judgment. We vacate the judg- ment and remand for further proceedings.
This is a patent infringement case. Starhome GmbH (“Starhome”) sued AT&T Mobility LLC, Roamware, Inc., and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Defendants”), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,920,487 (the “’487 patent”). The ’487 patent is titled “System and Methods for Global Access to Services for Mobile Telephone Sub- scribers.” It relates generally to a way of improving the functionality of phone services for users in a roaming telephone network. To allow users in a roaming network to make calls as if in their home network, the ’487 patent discloses the use of an “intelligent gateway.”
Following a Markman hearing, the district court con- strued various terms of the ’487 patent. Among them was the term “intelligent gateway,” which the court construed to mean “a network element that transfers information to and from a mobile network and another network external to the mobile network.” Relying upon that construction, Defendants moved for summary judgment of nonin- fringement. Starhome did not contest the motion, but instead stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement based upon the court’s construction of “intelligent gate- way.” Following the district court’s entry of the stipulated judgment on September 12, 2012, Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 1:10-cv-00434-GMS (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2012), Starhome appealed. We affirm.
Ancora Technologies, Inc., owns U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941, which claims methods for verifying that a software program on a computer is not there without authorization, but is licensed to be there. In December 2010, Ancora sued Apple Inc., alleging that products running Apple’s iOS operating system infringed the ’941 patent. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California construed the claims. Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 11-CV-06357, 2012 WL 6738761 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2012). Ancora stipulated to summary judgment of non-infringement under the district court’s construction of the claim term “program.” The district court subsequently entered final judgment dismissing all claims and counterclaims. Ancora appeals the district court’s construction of “program,” while Apple cross- appeals the district court’s holding that the terms “volatile memory” and “non-volatile memory” are not indefi- nite. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.