Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.

Watson Laboratories, Inc. appeals the District of Delaware’s final judgment holding Watson failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that claims 9 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,613,950 (“the ’950 patent”) would have been obvious. We hold the district court clearly erred in finding a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to use the claim elements. Considering the district court’s clear error together with the remainder of its fact findings, we conclude that claims 9 and 11 of the ’950 patent would have been obvious. We therefore reverse.

Download Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Laboratories 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.

Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

MasterMine Software, Inc. appeals from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity following adverse claim construction and indefiniteness rulings from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Because the district court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence, and the claims do not improperly claim both an apparatus and a method of using the apparatus, we affirm the court’s claim construction, reverse the court’s indefiniteness determination, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Mastermine Software Inc. v. Microsoft 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.

Dan Farr Productions v. USDC-CASD

This petition for a writ of mandamus arises in the context of a hotly contested trademark action initiated by San Diego Comic Convention (“SDCC”) against the producers of the Salt Lake Comic Con—Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg (“Petitioners”)—over the use of the mark “comiccon” or “comic con.” The case has drawn nationwide attention and discussion on traditional and social media alike, in part because “comic cons” have been held in hundreds of venues across the United States. Because defendants actively participated in the public discussions over the internet, on various websites and through social media platforms, including Twitter feeds and Facebook postings, SDCC successfully moved for a sweeping set of “suppression orders” prohibiting Petitioners from expressing their views on the pending litigation and from republishing public documents over social media platforms. Instead, the court ordered Petitioners to prominently post on their social media outlets its order prohibiting comments about the litigation on social media, dubbing this posting a “disclaimer.” Petitioners assert that the court-ordered prior restraints on their speech violate the First Amendment. We agree, and order that the district court vacate the “suppression” and “disclaimer” orders.

Download Dan Farr Productions v. USDC-CASD

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.

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.

LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (“Merck”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware concluding, after a bench trial, that claims 21–34 (“the asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 6,486,150 (“the ’150 patent”) are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (2006). See Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira Inc., No. CV 14-915-RGA, 2016 WL 5872620, at *21 (D. Del. July 10, 2016) (Decision). Because the district court did not err in its conclusion of obviousness, we affirm.

Download Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hospira 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.

AuSable River Trading Post, LLC v. Dovetail Solutions, Inc.

Plaintiff-Appellant AuSable River Trading Post, LLC (the “Trading Post”) filed this action against Defendants-Appellees Dovetail Solutions, Inc. (“Dovetail”) and Tawas Area Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”) for a declaratory judgment as to whether Defendants hold a valid, enforceable trademark for the term “Perchville,” and for damages under Michigan state law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, finding that Plaintiff’s trademark challenge is barred by the doctrine of res judicata and remanding the state court claims. In reaching its conclusion, the district court determined that Plaintiff was in privity with an hourly employee who had previously consented to a permanent injunction barring his use of the “Perchville” mark. Plaintiff challenges the district court’s finding that it is in privity with its employee for purposes of res judicata. We REVERSE.

Download AuSable River Trading Post LLC v. Dovetail Solutions 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.

SAS Institute, Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.

SAS Institute (SAS) and World Programming Limited (WPL) are competitors in the market for statistical analysis software. SAS alleges that WPL breached a license agreement for SAS software and violated copyrights on that software. We agree with the district court that the contractual terms at issue are unambiguous and that SAS has shown that WPL violated those terms. We thus affirm the district court’s judgment finding WPL liable for breach of the license agreement. With respect to the district court’s ruling on the copyright claim, we vacate that portion of the district court’s judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss it as moot.

Download SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming 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.

Arista Net 2 Works, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

The International Trade Commission entered a limited exclusion order against Arista Networks, Inc. based on its final determination that Arista infringed three of Cisco Systems, Inc.’s patents. The Commission also determined that Arista did not infringe two other Cisco patents. The exclusion order excluded entry into the United States imports of certain network devices, related software, and components thereof. Arista appeals the Commission’s infringement determination and the scope of the limited exclusion order. Cisco cross-appeals the Commission’s noninfringement determination. Finding no error in the Commission’s final determination or exclusion order, we affirm.

Download Arista Net 2 Works Inc. v. International Trade Commission

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.

Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority

Appellant Smart Systems Innovations, LLC (“SSI”) sued Appellees Chicago Transit Authority et al. (collectively, “Appellees”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“District Court”), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,566,003 (“the ’003 patent”), 7,568,617 (“the ’617 patent”), 8,505,816 (“the ’816 patent”), and 8,662,390 (“the ’390 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”). Appellees responded by filing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that various claims of the Patents-in-Suit (“the Asserted Claims”)2 are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2012).3 The District Court granted Appellees’ Motion, holding that the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea and otherwise lack an inventive concept, such that they are patent ineligible under § 101. See Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., No. 1:14-cv-08053, 2015 WL 4184486, at *7 (N.D. Ill. July 10, 2015). The District Court later entered final judgment as to the Asserted Claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).4 J.A. 1−2. SSI appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) (2012). We affirm.

Download Smart Systems Innovations LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority

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.

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.

Secured Mail Solutions LLC appeals from the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s grant of a motion to dismiss on grounds that the claims of seven asserted patents are directed to subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the claims of the asserted patents are directed to an abstract idea and the claims contain no additional elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, we affirm.

Download Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde 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.

Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas Co.

Organik Kimya AS (“Organik”) appeals the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) in two related inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings for which Organik is the Petitioner. The Patent Owner is the Rohm and Haas Company. The PTAB sustained the patentability of claims 1–5 of U.S Patent No. 6,020,435 (“the ’435 Patent”), and claims 1–7 of its division, U.S. Patent No. 6,252,004 (“the ’004 Patent”). On appellate review, we affirm the PTAB’s decisions.

Download Organik Kimya AS v. Rohm and Haas 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.