Willamette Law Online

Intellectual Property

( 10 summaries )

Opinions Filed in October 2011

Streck, Inc. v. Research and Diagnostic Systems, Inc.

Patents: For purposes of determining priority of an invention, to establish an actual reduction to practice, it is necessary to show that the claimant had possession of the subject matter and that it was shown or known to work for its intended purpose.

(Filing Date: 10-20-2011)

Field Turf Builders, LLC v. Fieldturf USA, Inc.

Trade Secrets: One cannot claim a trade secret if it was not maintained as a secret.

(Filing Date: 10-14-2011)

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLC

Patents: A presumption of irreparable harm no longer applies when determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate in a suit for patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

Absolute Software, Inc. and Absolute Software Corporation v. Stealth Signal, Inc. and Computer Security Products, Inc.

Patents: A patentee's consistent use of the phrase "present invention" or "this invention" does not always limit the scope of the entire invention, particularly where other intrinsic evidence does not support applying the limitation to the entire patent.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Tianrui Group Company Ltd. v. ITC

Trade Secrets: Under the Tariff Act, when the divulgement of a trade secret occurs extraterritorially U.S. Trade Secret law can still be applied.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Stephen P. Troy Jr. and Troy Industries, Inc.

Patents: A patent must contain “a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art … to make and use the same” and it must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., Bally Technologies, inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc.

Patents: The rules of claim construction include: 1. “The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history,” unless the patentee “clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning;” 2. The “claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears;” and 3. “A claim is only indefinite if it is not amenable to construction or is insolubly ambiguous.”

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

In Re Stepan Company

Patents: A rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based on new grounds not considered by the examiner cannot be the final judicial ruling.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2011)

John Mezzalingua Associate, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

Patents: The domestic industry requirement of section 337 of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 can be fulfilled in any one of three ways: 1. significant investment in plant and equipment; 2. significant employment of labor or capital; or 3. substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., and Bunzl Processor Distribution, LLC

Patents: Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 only applies after all appeal rights have been exhausted; inherency argument of infringement is only applicable where prior art necessarily functions as the challenged patent.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)