Previous month:
July 2013
Next month:
September 2013

Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int'l, Ltd.

O2 Micro International Ltd. (“O2 Micro”) appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California finding this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding attorney fees and costs to Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (“MPS”), and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. and ASUSTeK Computer International (collectively, “ASUSTeK”). See Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., No. 08-4567, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154454 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2011) (“Exceptional Case Order”); Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., No. 08- 4567, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5109 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2012) (“Fees and Costs Order”). We affirm both the exceptional case finding and the attorney fees award.

Download

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd. v. Kappos

This appeal arises from an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,753,013 (the ’013 patent). The ’013 patent is owned by Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Ltd. (Leo Pharmaceuticals) and challenged by third party requester Galderma R&D. While the “substantial evidence” standard of review for fact findings made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board)1 makes Leo Pharmaceutical’s burden on appeal a challenging one, after careful review, this court finds that Leo Pharmaceuticals has met that burden. Because the Board incorrectly construed the claim term “storage stable,” this court reverses the Board’s claim construction. See Ex parte Leo Pharm. Prods., Ltd., No. 2012-003165 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 30, 2012). Furthermore, because the Board incorrectly found the claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the prior art and incorrectly weighed the objective indicia of nonobviousness, this court reverses the Board’s obviousness determination.

Download

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.

For the reasons set forth below, we rule as follows on the issues presented: In the appeals from the DaimlerChrysler Patent Suit, (1) we affirm the district court’s constructions of all the disputed claim terms; (2) we affirm the judgment of invalidity of claims 16 and 27 of the ’658 patent; (3) we affirm the judgment of noninfringement; and (4) we affirm the finding of an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the resulting award of damages. In the appeals from the Breach of Warranty Suit, (1) we affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction over Orion and Spangenberg; (2) we affirm liability for breach of the Warranty Provision; (3) we affirm the award of damages consisting of attorney fees incurred by Chrysler and Mercedes in prosecuting the Breach of Warranty Suit, but reverse the award of damages consisting of attorney fees incurred by Chrysler and Mercedes in defending against the DaimlerChrysler Patent Suit; and (4) we affirm the imposition of evidentiary sanctions based on witness tampering. Based on these rulings, we do not reach the conditional cross-appeal.

Download

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

Aria Diagnostics, Inc., now known as Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (Ariosa) sought a declaration that its Harmony test did not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,258,540 (the ’540 patent), owned by defendant Isis Innovation Limited (Isis) and licensed by Isis exclusively to Sequenom, Inc. (Sequenom). Sequenom counterclaimed, alleging that Ariosa’s Harmony test infringes the ’540 patent. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequenom’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent Ariosa from making, using, or selling that test. Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 2012 WL 2599340 (N.D. Cal. July 5, 2012). Because the district court incorrectly interpreted the asserted claims and improperly balanced factors regarding issuance of a preliminary injunction, this court vacates and remands.

Download

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., et al.

We must decide whether a rock band’s unauthorized use of an artist’s illustration in the video backdrop of its stage show was a “fair use” under copyright law.

Download Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., et al.

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


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

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., et al.

We must decide whether a rock band’s unauthorized use of an artist’s illustration in the video backdrop of its stage show was a “fair use” under copyright law.

Download Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., et al.

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby

Appeal by the defendants-counter-claimants from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs-counter-defendants on their claim for declaratory relief and denying the defendants-counter-claimants' cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs-counter-defendants commenced this lawsuit in response to notices sent by the defendants-counter-claimants, the children of comic book artist Jack Kirby, purporting to terminate alleged assignments in certain of their father's works pursuant to section 304(c)(2) of the Copyright Act of 1976. We conclude that: (1) the district court incorrectly determined that it had personal jurisdiction over Lisa and Neal Kirby; (2) Lisa and Neal Kirby were not indispensable parties to the action under Rule 19(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) the district court correctly determined that the works at issue were "made for hire" under section 304(c), and that Marvel was therefore entitled to summary judgment. Affirmed in part; vacated in part. R. BRUCE RICH (James W. Quinn, Randi W. Singer, Gregory Silbert, on the brief), Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, New York; David Fleischer, Haynes and Boone, LLP, New York, New York for Plaintiffs-Counter- Defendants-Appellees and Counter- Defendants-Appellees. MARC TOBEROFF, Toberoff & Associates, P.C., Malibu, California, for Defendants-Counter- Claimants-Appellants.

Download Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Kirby

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


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

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.


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.

Don't fall for common copyright myths. If your work is worth copying, it is worth registering. Contact us today about protecting your valuable creative works with federal copyright registration.

Please visit us at Gehrke & Associates, SC.