Intellectual Property and Tech Law Reports

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

In patent infringement litigation involving a patent for prosthetic vascular grafts, the judgment in the district court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in denying the defendant's post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law on issues of proper inventorship, anticipation, obviousness, written description, and willfulness of the infringement; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding enhanced damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and an ongoing royalty.

Download Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Apotex Corp.

In a patent infringement action involving patented methods for using the cholesterol-lowering drug rosuvastatin calcium, the district court's dismissal of the infringement claims is affirmed, where: 1) the district court erred in part by concluding that the plaintiffs' failure to state a cognizable claim under 35 USC section 271(e)(2) defeated its jurisdiction; but 2) the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 35 USC section 271(e)(2) based on the appellees' existing Abbreviated New Drug Applications filings, and 3) the plaintiffs' claims premised on presumed future labeling amendments were not ripe for adjudication.

Download AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Apotex Corp.

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC

In a patent infringement suit involving patents relating to technology for weighing objects, such as large commercial trucks: 1) the district court's denial of the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law is affirmed, where the district court correctly construed the claims of one patent and substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict of invalidity of another patent; and 2) the district court's denial of sanctions against the plaintiff for alleged withholding and destruction of relevant documents is affirmed, where the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the documents were not highly relevant and that there was little harm to the defendant.

Download Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC

Adair v. Carter

On appeal a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences holding that the appellants' single claim involved in an interference with the appellees was time-barred under 35 USC section 135(b)(1), the decision of the Board is affirmed, where: 1) to overcome a section 135(b) bar for a post-critical date claim, an applicant must show that such claim is not materially different from a pre-critical date claim present in the application or any predecessor thereto in order to obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date, and in this case the Board found material differences; 2) the Board properly presumed material differences between the plaintiffs' post- and pre-critical date claims; 3) the Board did not establish any absolute requirement that the pre-critical date claims must have been patentable to the plaintiff, and doing so would have been harmless error; and 4) the Board did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider a claim for the first time on rehearing.

Download Adair v. Carter

Secalt, S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Construction Machinery Co., Ltd.

In a suit claiming that the defendant's traction hoists infringed the trade dress of the plaintiffs' traction hoist, the district court's grant of summary judgment, its finding of exceptionality, and its award of attorney's fees under the Lanham Act are affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to the nonfunctionality of its claimed trade dress, but the district court's award of non-taxable costs and certain taxable costs is reversed.

Download Secalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Machinery Co., Ltd.

Peoples Federal Savings Bank v. People's United Bank

In trademark litigation between two banks using the word "People" in their name, the district court's denial of a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is affirmed, where the district court did not err in its assessment of the record nor did it misapprehend applicable legal principals or otherwise abuse its discretion when it determined there no likelihood of the movant's success on the merits.

Download Peoples Fed Savings Bank v. People's United Bank

Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

In a patent infringement action concerning a patent relating to a tactile feedback system for computer video games, the district court's judgment of noninfringement upon stipulation is vacated and the case remanded, where: 1) the district court improperly limited the term "attached to said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface, and the parties based the stipulation of noninfringement on the district court's erroneous construction of this claim; and 2) the district court erred in its construction of the term "flexible."

Download Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

In a dispute concerning a patent covering a handover in a cellular telephone network, the district court's denial of a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claims is reversed, where the district court, based on its erroneous claim construction, erred when it held the claims indefinite for claiming an apparatus and method steps. However, the district court was correct to deny summary judgment on an alternative indefiniteness claim, because although the district court was wrong when it found that a processor and transceiver alone supplied sufficient structure, the appellant failed to preserve any attack on the algorithm that the patent holder asserted provided additional needed structure.

Download HTC Corp. v. IPCom GmbH & Co., KG

Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.

In a patent infringement case involving a vehicle-mounted lamp, the district court's denial of the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law on invalidity is reversed, its summary judgment of infringement is vacated, and the case is remanded for entry of judgment of nonliability for the defendant, where the district court committed reversible error in its holdings that: 1) a reasonable jury could find that a competing French patent failed to teach the required "conical beam of light;" and 2) the jury could have reasonably found the French patent to lack a lamp "adjacent to the window."

Download Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co.

Falana v. Kent State University

In a suit against a university and inventors listed on a patent alleging that the plaintiff was an omitted co-inventor, the district court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff as to inventorship is affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in construing the language of the claims; 2) error in the exclusion of certain exhibits did not result in substantial injustice and was harmless error; 3) the district court did not err in concluding that the plaintiff's contribution of the method used by the team of which he was a part for making the claimed compounds was enough of a contribution to conception to pass the threshold required for joint inventorship; and 4) the district court's exceptional case finding and award of attorney fees were not yet final and not properly before the court of appeals.

Download Falana v. Kent State University