Limitations of a Claim Come from the Claim Language Itself In E-Pass Technologies (“E-Pass”) v. 3Com Corp., Palm Inc., palmOne, Inc. and Handspring, Inc. and Visa International Service Association and Visa U.S.A., Inc. and Palmsource, Inc. (“3Com”), the district court’s holding of final summary judgment of non-infringement by 3Com was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. At issue was a patent (“the ‘311 patent”) entitled “Method […] Continue Reading →
“Bare Licensee” Lacks Standing to Sue for Infringement In Propat International Corp & David Find and Helene Glasser (“Propat”) v. RPsot International Limted, Zafar Khan, Kenneth Barton and Terrance Tomkow (“Rpost”), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that Propat lacked standing to sue for infringement and, on the cross-appeal, affirmed the district court’s order denying RPost’s request for an award of […] Continue Reading →
“Use in commerce” not necessary to support trademark opposition, just use in the United States The Federal Circuit, reversing the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), found that a Canadian company who arguably only did business in Canada could oppose a trademark application based on "spillover" use of its unregistered trademark in the United States. The Canadian company, First Niagara Insurance Brokers, opposed several trademark applications filed by a United […] Continue Reading →
Another claim construction reversal: Claim not limited to preferred embodiment In a split decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s judgment of noninfringement based on error in claim construction. The patent at issue involves a machine and method that automate the staining of microscope slides used in biological assays. The district court construed the claims narrowly based on the preferred embodiment described in the […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the issue of determining when an invention is on sale within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A claimed invention is considered to be on sale under ? 102(b) if the invention is sold or offered for sale more than one […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit considers intent required for inducing infringement en banc The Federal Circuit resolved a perceived conflict in its case law regarding the necessary level of intent required for a defendant to be found liable for inducing infringement of a patent. The court considered one subsection of DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. en banc to resolve the conflict. The court held that to prove […] Continue Reading →
Speak Now or Forever Hold Your Peace – Failure to Raise Verdict Inconsistency Defeats Appeal In L&W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc. and Steven W. Sheridan (“Shertech”), the Court affirmed in part the decision of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan holding claim 7 valid and claim 10 invalid of Shertech’s ‘264 patent, and affirming the portion of the judgment holding that the ‘264 patent was not […] Continue Reading →
Court Applied Four-Factor Test for Preliminary Injunction Relief In Sanofi v. Apotex (Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo,Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp.), the Court affirmed the decision granted by the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granting a preliminary injunction in favor of Sanofi. At issue was a patent (“the ‘265 patent”) for an […] Continue Reading →
Majority of Federal Circuit appears ready to reconsider claim construction standard of review Today the Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc in Amgen, Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., a case dealing with synthetic human erythropoietin, a protein that stimulates red blood cell production. In order to rehear a case en banc, a majority of active judges on the court must vote to rehear the case. There are […] Continue Reading →
Enablement standard for prior art less stringent than enablement standard for patents The Federal Circuit, in Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., discussed the requirements for a prior art reference to be enabled, and thus anticipate a patent. Aventis is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814, covering the use of the compound riluzole to treat ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Impax wanted to […] Continue Reading →