Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Jacob Book

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Jacob Krippelz, Sr. v. Ford Motor CompanyPatents: Conclusory expert testimony is not a substitute for actual prior art disclosure in an anticipation analysis. (01-27-2012)
Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. SeedPatents: "A putative inventor who envisions the structure of a novel genus of chemical compounds and contributes the method of making that genus contributes to the conception of that genus."(01-23-2012)
Marctec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis CorporationPatents: A litigation position which is unsupported by the intrinsic record, because it ignores both the specification and prosecution history, may be found frivolous and support a finding of vexatious litigation misconduct.(01-03-2012)
Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.Patents: For computer-implemented procedures, the actual computer code does not need to appear in the specification, the algorithm may be described in words sufficient to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithm.(11-04-2011)
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLCPatents: A presumption of irreparable harm no longer applies when determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate in a suit for patent infringement.(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.(10-11-2011)
Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.Patents: A general jury verdict of invalidity will be upheld when there is sufficient evidence to support alternative theories of invalidity.(09-23-2011)
Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Vernon Hugh BowmanPatents: When dealing with self-replicating technology, the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not bar an infringement action.(09-21-2011)
In re Phyllis Leithem, Charles A. Kremers, W. Paul Harrell, Stephen Lewis, Karl D. Sears, Quan He, and Peter R. AbitzPatents: Applicants must have an opportunity to respond to the thrust of a patentability rejection.(09-19-2011)
Eliyahou Harari, Robert D. Norman, and Sanjay Mehrotra v. Roger Lee and Fernando Gonzalez, and Andrei Mihnea, Jeffrey Kessenich, and Chun ChenPatents: Unequivocal language may be used to incorporate the disclosure of a previous patent application.(09-01-2011)
AIA Engineering Limited and Vega Industries, Ltd., Inc. v. Magotteaux International S/A and Magotteaux, Inc.Patents: Impermissible recapture under 35 U.S.C. §251 is not implicated unless a patentee attempts to regain subject matter deliberately surrendered during the original patent prosecution.(08-31-2011)
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC Patents: Inclusion of a physical step may allow an otherwise ineligible process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter to pass the §101 threshold and remain patent-eligible.(08-31-2011)
In re Keisuke Aoyama, Kojiro Toyoshima, and Yoshitaka EzakiPatents: A lower court's decision may be affirmed on alternative grounds, but under 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) a patent applicant may subsequently be allowed to amend claims or offer new evidence not previously of record to overcome the new ground of rejection.(08-29-2011)
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLCPatents: When an obvious error is present, a court must consider reasonable interpretations of a patent claim from the point of view of one skilled in the art.(08-10-2011)
MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co. and Nissan North America, Inc., and Hyundai Motor Co.Patents: The scope of a patent assignment determines whether an assignee has the requisite standing to assert patent infringement.(08-10-2011)
In Re Construction Equipment CompanyPatents: Determining either what a reference teaches, or whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine prior art references is a question of fact.(02-08-2011)