Willamette Law Online

(12 summaries)

Greta Lowry

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.Patents: Intervening rights with respect to reissued patents do not accrue where the accused product or activity infringes a claim that existed in the original patent and remains without substantive change after reissue.(03-15-2012)
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLCPatents: Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.(02-27-2012)
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLCPatents: Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.(02-27-2012)
Craig Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLCPatents: The words of a patent 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.(02-01-2012)
HTC Corporation v. IP-COM GMBH & CO.Patents: To determine whether a means plus function limitation is definite, a court looks to: 1) the particular claimed function, and 2) the specification and corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform that function.(01-30-2012)
Celsis In Vitro Inc, v. Cellzdirect, Inc.Patents: The court analyzes four factors when considering a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm, 3) balance of hardships, and 4) public interest.(01-09-2012)
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca PharmaceuticalsPatents: Conception occurs when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, but the inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.(12-01-2011)
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.(10-20-2011)
Cordis Corp. v. Boston ScientificPatents: Patent infringement analysis is a two-step inquiry: first, the court determines the scope and meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then the properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device.(09-28-2011)
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.Patents: PATENTS; INTERVENING RIGHTS (Doctrine of equitable intervening rights protects an accused infringer's ability to make, sell, offer to sell, or use particular items that are covered by a reexamined patent, provided that the items are of the same type that the accused infringer had made, purchased, or used before the reexamination.)(09-26-2011)
Markem-Imaje Corporation v. Zipher LTD. and Videojet Technologies, Inc.Patents: Patent claims need not recite every component necessary to enable operation of a working device, though a device will only operate if certain elements are included, that is not grounds to incorporate those elements into the construction.(09-09-2011)
Cybersource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc.Patents: A method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible because computational methods that can be performed entirely in the human mind embody basic tools of scientific work that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.(08-16-2011)