Willamette Law Online

(34 summaries)

Jason Sierman

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Alcon Research Ltd. V. Barr Laboratories, Inc.Patents: When Barr challenged Alcon's patent, it did not show with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not practice the claim without undue experimentation, which is required to prove lack of enablement. (03-18-2014)
Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLCPatents: Non-infringement was found when two figures were submitted in a claim and were ambiguous because they didn't rise to the level of clear intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim term.(02-24-2014)
PFIZER INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.Patents: Claims are construed under the term’s plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art unless: 1) patentee defines and acts as own lexicographer, or 2) patentee disavows the full scope of a claim in specification or prosecution.(02-06-2014)
KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SIDENSE CORPORATION Patents: The court may award reasonable attorney fees in patent infringement cases with exceptional circumstances; a clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the inquiry of whether fees will be awarded.(12-26-2013)
AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC.Patents: The doctrine of equivalents protects patentees from copyists using unforeseeable equivalents that perform the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as a patent claim.(12-04-2013)
Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC.Patents: Unremarkable secondary indicia of non-obviousness was inadequate to rebut a strong prima facie case of obviousness. (11-15-2013)
IBORMEITH IP, LLC v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLCPatents: Patents containing “computational means” limitations require the disclosure of structures with specific steps for performing the claimed functions.(10-22-2013)
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSIONPatents: Patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent must both be shown to establish a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.(10-03-2013)
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC.Patents: Consonance was not maintained in divisional applications because it contained two or more separately patentable inventions.(09-11-2013)
SKINMEDICA, INC. v. HISTOGEN INC.Patents: During claim construction, terms are not always afforded their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of a term can be disclaimed and redefined through repeated and definitive remarks in the patents written description. (08-23-2013)
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.)Patents: New designs borne from combining prior art can only be patented if the new combination is not so obvious as to be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.(07-09-2013)
ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and Ultramercial, LLC, v. HULU, LLC, and Wildtangent, Inc.Patents: A patent can embrace an abstract idea so long as it meaningfully limits the idea by restricting the patent to a concrete application of the idea.(06-21-2013)
General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.Patents: Patent applicants have an “uncompromising” duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the PTO, which includes the duty of disclosing all known material prior art.(05-28-2013)
Bryan C. McIntire v. Sunrise Specialty Co.Patents: A design patent is infringed if “the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof,” is applied to “any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale.”(05-07-2013)
Nassau Precision Casting Co., Inc. v. Achushnet Co., Inc. Cobra Golf Co., and Puma N.A., Inc.Patents: Infringement was not proved because golf clubs alleged to be infringing did not meet the specifics of the patent claim language. (04-17-2013)
Dawson v. DawsonPatents: PATENT; CONCEPTION: Inventor must have formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice.(03-25-2013)
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd.Patents: Liability for indirect patent infringement can occur when claim steps are performed by more than one entity, provided the elements for inducement are met.(03-04-2013)
Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Patents: Enablement can be found when one skilled in the art can practice the invention without “undue experimentation.”(02-14-2013)
Rexnord Industries, LLC v. KapposPatents: Prior art may anticipate a missing feature that must be necessarily present, or inherent, without explicitly disclosing that feature. (01-23-2013)
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent LitigationPatents: An unsuccessful filing of an ANDA is a statutory act of infringement.(12-14-2012)
Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk CorporationPatents: Parties that purchase patented goods have standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim against the patentee, alleging the patent was obtained by fraud on the PTO. (11-20-2012)
Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/SPatents: Prosecution history estoppel bars the assertion of the doctrine of equivalents when the presumption that a key claim phrase was narrowed to secure the patent in question is not overcome.(10-12-2012)
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc.Patents: To render a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, both the materiality of a nondisclosure or misrepresentation and intent to deceive the USPTO must be proven. (09-21-2012)
Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLCPatents: For “means-plus-function” claims using algorithms, one must disclose it so as to show how its structure, material, or act supports the patent claim.(09-05-2012)
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.Patents: A JMOL for patent non-infringement must be supported with substantial evidence. Permanent injunctions on patent infringement cannot be upheld where losses are quantifiable based on lost license fees and damages are not irreparable harm.(08-24-2012)
Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLCPatents: A patentee may enlarge the scope of his original claim only if by error he claimed less than he had a right to claim in the original patent.(08-22-2012)
In re BeinekePatents: An accidental seedlings discovery is not the product of the human inventive faculty.(08-06-2012)
In re Antor Media CorporationPatents: Unclaimed disclosures in patents carry a presumption of enablement.(07-27-2012)
General Electric Co. v. ITCPatents: Tariff Act of 1930, § 337, protects domestic industry by prohibiting imports that infringe on U.S. patents.(07-06-2012)
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.Copyright: When plaintiff claiming patent infringement fails to establish any basis for an award of relief, the defendant is entitled to a judgment dismissing the case. (06-22-2012)
In re HyonPatents: Obviousness is a question of fact that the Court of Appeals reviews for substantial evidence.(05-24-2012)
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Patents: Reverse payment settlements do not violate antitrust laws in patent cases, because patent holders have been granted a lawful right to exclude for the duration of their patent.(04-24-2012)
Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J&L Fiber Services, Inc.Patents: Unclear patent terms can be probative of a lack of willfulness on the part of an alleged patent infringer.(04-03-2012)
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.Patents: Patents based on natural law must contain other inventive elements to ensure the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent of the natural law itself.(03-20-2012)