Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Apple appeals from the final decision of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 (’607 patent) are invalid and that Motorola does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (’828 patent). Apple challenges the ITC’s claim construction and its determinations of obviousness, anticipation, and noninfringement. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and vacate-in-part the ITC’s decision and remand for further proceedings. Download Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Apple appeals from the final decision of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607 (’607 patent) are invalid and that Motorola does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 (’828 patent). Apple challenges the ITC’s claim construction and its determinations of obviousness, anticipation, and noninfringement. For the following reasons, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and vacate-in-part the ITC’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

Download Apple Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

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

Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, Inc. (Rembrandt) appeals from the district court’s judgment that Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVC) does not infringe Rembrandt’s U.S. Patent No. 5,712,327 (’327 patent). Rembrandt challenges the court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law and its denial of Rembrandt’s motion for a new trial. Because the district court correctly granted judgment as a matter of law that JJVC does not infringe, we affirm.

Download Rembrandt Vision Techs., L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc.

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

Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.

In this declaratory judgment action, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted the summary judgment motion of Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems (Tetra Pack Cheese) and Treval Laval Holdings & Finance S.A (Treval Laval) (collectively, Tetra Pak) against Cheese Systems, Inc. (CSI). In an unpublished fifty-four page opinion, the trial court determined that CSI infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and had not proven the ’347 patent invalid. Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc. and Tetra Laval Holdings & Fin. S.A., No. 11-cv-21- bbc (W.D. Wis. May 15, 2012); J.A. 1–54 (Slip Op.). By stipulation, the district court also entered a permanent injunction against CSI. Slip Op. at 55–58. Because the District Court correctly applied the law to these facts, this court affirms.

Download Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc.

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

3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.

This appeal deals with claim construction disputes arising out of 3M Innovative Properties Company and 3M Company’s (collectively, “3M”) allegations of patent infringement brought against Tredegar Corporation and Tredegar Film Products Corporation (collectively, “Tredegar”) in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (“district court”). 3M competes in the elastomeric laminate industry with Tredegar. 3M is a global manufacturing company that sells laminate products such as diapers. Tredegar is a supplier of breathable and nonwoven film laminates for personal care products, including baby diapers, training pants, and adult incontinence products. The district court construed claim terms in four asserted patents. After claim construction, the parties stipulated to noninfringement. 3M appeals the district court’s construction for four of the thirty disputed claim terms or groups of terms. We affirm the appropriate scope of the claim terms “continuous contact” and “continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate,” but clarify the appropriate scope of those claim terms. We reverse the district court’s claim constructions relating to the terms grouped as “preferential activation zone” and the term “ribbon.” Because the district court erroneously limited certain claim terms in a manner that is inconsistent with the intrinsic disclosures, we provide the appropriate constructions, vacate those constructions that are inconsistent with the analysis herein, and remand for further proceedings.

Download 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.

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

Apple 'pinch-to-zoom' patent on shaky ground, report says

by Don Reisinger

Apple's embattled "pinch-to-zoom" patent has apparently been tossed out by federal patent authorities, if a new report is correct.

Samsung Electronics on Sunday filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, requesting that all alleged infringement against Apple's pinch-to-zoom patent -- Patent No. 7,844,915 -- be tossed out, according to Macworld, which obtained a copy of the documents. Samsung cited a recent decision on the part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to reject all 21 claims in the patent through a "final office action," according to Macworld.

Full story.

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

Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.

The Charles Machine Works, Inc. (CMW) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Vermeer Manufacturing Company’s (Vermeer) accused commercial products and non-commercial prototypes do not infringe, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. CMW also challenges whether the prototypes were properly within the scope of summary judgment. We hold that CMW did not have sufficient notice that the prototypes were within the scope of the summary judgment decision, and thus vacate-in-part and remand. Regarding the accused commercial products, we affirm that there is no literal infringement, and reverse that there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remand.

Download Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.

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

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea

Appellant Smith & Nephew, Inc., seeks review of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (now known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Reversing the decision of a patent examiner, the Board held that certain claims of a patent owned by appellee Synthes (U.S.A.) would not have been obvious and therefore were not invalid. Both Synthes and the Acting Director of the Patent and Trademark Office have filed briefs supporting the Board’s decision. While the “substantial evidence” standard of review for the Board’s factual findings makes Smith & Nephew’s burden on appeal a heavy one, we are satisfied, after careful review, that Smith & Nephew has met that burden and has shown that the claims at issue would have been obvious. We therefore reverse the decision of the Board.

Download Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea

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

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

Cisco Systems, Inc. appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, which was based on the findings of two separate jury verdicts finding that: Cisco directly and indirectly infringed specified claims of Commil USA, LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395 (“’395 patent”); the specified claims of the ’395 patent are not invalid as indefinite, for lack of enablement, or as lacking adequate written description; and that Cisco was liable for $63,791,153 in damages as well as pre-judgment interest and costs. We find that the district court gave the jury a legally erroneous instruction with respect to indirect infringement. Additionally, we find that Cisco’s evidence of a good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement. However, we find that the district court did not err in granting a partial new trial. Thus, we affirm-in-part, vacate-in-part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.

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

Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed this patent suit, filed by Ultramercial, LLC and Ultramercial, Inc. (collectively, “Ultramercial”), by holding that U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545 (“the ’545 patent”) does not claim patent-eligible subject matter. In an earlier decision, later vacated by the United States Supreme Court, this court reversed the district court’s holding and remanded. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, 657 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2011), vacated sub nom. WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC, 132 S.Ct. 2431 (2012). Because this court again holds that the district court erred in holding that the subject matter of the ’545 patent is not a “process” within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101, this court again reverses and remands.

Download Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC

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