Intellectual Property and Tech Law Reports

Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.

This case features computer graphics systems such as the type used to animate the Pixar Animation Studios (“Pixar”) movies Toy Story and Wall-E. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wiscon-sin granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendants ATI Technologies, Inc. (“ATI Inc.”), ATI Technologies ULC (“ATI ULC”), and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) (collectively “ATI”) on a number of claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,650,327 (the “’327 patent”). Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., No. 06-611, 2008 WL 4200359 (Jan. 30, 2008) (“Summary Judgment Opin-ion”). The District Court concluded that plaintiff Silicon Graphics, Inc., (“Silicon Graphics” or “SGI”) did not create a genuine factual dispute on direct infringement. Id. at *18-20. The trial court also concluded that a license between Silicon Graphics and Microsoft Corp. (the “Mi-crosoft license”) authorized users of Microsoft operating systems to practice the claimed technology. Id. at *21-23. Following its summary judgment ruling, the district court held a jury trial on the validity of the ’327 patent. The jury concluded that certain claims were not proved to be invalid. Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 819 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (“JMOL Opinion”).

Because the district court erroneously construed two of the three contested limitations in the ’327 patent this court vacates the summary judgment on claims with those terms. This court also determines that the district court erred with respect to the effect of the Microsoft license on direct infringement. In all other respects, this court affirms.

Download Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.

Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Baxter Healthcare Corp. and Fenwal Inc. (collectively, “Fenwal”) appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granting judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) that asserted claim 16 of U.S. Patent 6,705,983 (“the ’983 patent”) is not indefinite, from the district court’s denial of JMOL that claim 16 was either anticipated by prior invention or obvious, and from the court’s award of prospective reme-dies. Because the district court erred in its construction of “centrifugal unit” in claim 16, thereby affecting the court’s other determinations, we reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Download Haemonetics Corp. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.

Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.

We consider whether federal copyright law preempts state law claims alleging the unauthorized use of screenplays, videos, and other materials in the production of a cable television series.

Download Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc.

Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of Am., Inc.

Alan R. Thomsen sued Famous Dave's of America, Inc. (Famous Dave's), and two of its sign vendors, alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract. The district court1 granted summary judgment to defendants after concluding that Thomsen had unambiguously conveyed all contested copyrights to Famous Dave's by written contract, and Thomsen appeals. We affirm.

Download Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of Am., Inc.

Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage

Amazing Spaces, Inc., and Metro Mini Storage are rival self-storage businesses in Houston, Texas. Amazing Spaces brought this action against Metro and Landmark Interest Corporation, a construction company, alleging infringement of a star design that it claims as a service mark. The district court concluded that the design was not a legally protectable mark and dismissed Amazing Spaces’s claims on summary judgment. We agree that the design was not legally protectable, and we affirm the judgment dismissing Amazing Spaces’s service mark infringement claims. However, we also conclude that the district court erred in dismissing Amazing Spaces’s claims relating to infringement of its trade dress, and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Download Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd.

This appeal arises from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granting summary judgment of invalidity against appellants Ablaise Ltd. and General Inventions Institute A, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ablaise”) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,961,737 (the ’737 patent) and 6,295,530 (the ’530 patent). Specifically, the district court held that the asserted claims of the ’737 patent were invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and that the asserted claims of the ’530 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by prior art. Addi-tionally, Ablaise appeals the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss appellees’ Dow Jones & Co., Inc. and Dow Jones Reuters Interactive, LLC’s (d/b/a Factiva) (collectively, “Dow Jones”) claim against the ’530 patent on the grounds that Ablaise’s proffer of a covenant not to sue Dow Jones for infringement of that patent divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the district court’s denial of Ablaise’s motion to dismiss Dow Jones’ invalidity claim against the ’530 patent and affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the asserted claims of the ’737 patent are invalid as obvious. Because the dis-trict court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Dow Jones’ claim against the ’530 patent, this court cannot reach the question of whether the asserted claims of that patent are invalid.

Download Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd.

Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.

Defendant-Appellant Leviton Manufacturing Com-pany, Inc. (“Leviton”) appeals the district court’s award of attorney fees and costs to Plaintiff-Appellee Shanghai Meihao, Inc. (“Meihao”) based on inequitable conduct and vexatious litigation. We vacate and remand for the rea-sons below.

Download Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.

Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun

Jack C. Benun (Benun), Jazz Products LLC (Jazz), Polytech Enterprise Ltd. (PE) and Polytech (Shenzhen) Camera Co. (PC) (collectively, defendants) appeal the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey finding that defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation (Fuji). Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun, No. 2:05cv1863 (D. N.J. July 22, 2009) (Final Order and Judgment). We affirm.

Download Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun

Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Vizio, Inc. and Amtran Technology Company, Ltd. (collectively, “Vizio”), and TPV Technology, Ltd., TPV International, Inc., Top Victory Electronics Company, Ltd., and Envision Peripherals, Inc. (collectively, “TPV”) appeal from the final determination of the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) that the importation and sale of certain digital television products violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The Commission issued a limited exclu-sion order and a cease and desist order. In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Contain-ing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617 (U.S.I.T.C. Apr. 10, 2009) (“Final Determination”). The Commission’s action was based on its finding that the accused products infringed claims 1, 5, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 6,115,074 (the “’074 patent”), and that the ’074 patent was not invalid.

We affirm the Commission’s construction of the term “channel map information,” as well as the Commission’s determination that the ’074 patent is not invalid as an-ticipated or obvious. Furthermore, we affirm the Com-mission’s construction of the term “identifying channel map information . . . and assembling said identified information” in claims 1 and 23 as not precluding use of the Moving Picture Experts Group (“MPEG”) Program Map Table (“PMT”) and its determination that the ’074 patent is infringed by the “legacy products.” However, we find the Commission erred in its conclusion that the claims do not require that the channel map information be capable of being used, see In the Matter of Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617, slip op. at 49 (U.S.I.T.C. Nov. 17, 2008) (“Initial Determi-nation”), and we accordingly reverse the Commission’s determination that the “work-around products” infringe.

Download Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Deere & Company (“Deere”) appeals from the judg-ment of the United States International Trade Commis-sion, which determined that the sales of European-version self-propelled John Deere forage harvesters in the United States by Intervenors Bourdeau Brothers, Inc., OK En-terprises, and Sunova Implement Co. (collectively, “Bour-deau”) did not violate § 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The Commission based its decision on a finding that, although Bourdeau infringed Deere’s trademarks through gray market importation, not “all or substantially all” of Deere’s authorized sales of harvesters in the United States were of the North Ameri-can version, so Deere was not entitled to an exclusion order. See In the Matter of Certain Agric. Vehicles & Components Thereof, No. 337-TA-487, 2008 WL 4352378 (ITC Aug. 25, 2008) (“Commission Remand Opinion”).  Because the Commission improperly applied the “all or substantially all” test, we vacate and remand.

Download Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n