Thursday, June 30, 2005

Lockformer Co., et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc.

Lockformer and PPG Industries are competitors in insulated, multi-pane glass. PPG alleged that Lockformer infringed their patent for a new kind of glass spacer and spacer frame. After close of PPG evidence, Lockformer prevailed on a motion for summary judgment because PPG failed to present any evidence that Lockformer's product did not contain an adhesive adhering to a flat metal strip. The CAFC affirmed.
Note that this opinion may not be cited as precedent.

Listen to the CAFC's published opinion.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Seachange International, Inc. v. C-Cor, Inc.

Seachange and C-Cor compete in the video-on-demand server industry. Seachange holds a patent on a distributed, fault-tolerate video distribution server network. The CAFC refused to apply the doctrine of claim differentiation because of patent prosecution history; and they interpreted the limitation "network for data communications" to only point-to-point connections. The opinion also summarizes a protest (which are fairly rare in patent prosecution). The CAFC revered the finding of infringement because Seachange stipulated that C-Cor did not literally infringe and, because of the prosecution history, applying the doctrine of equivalents would "vitiate an entire claim limitation".
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Northpoint Technology, LTD v. MDS America, Inc., et al.

Northpoint's patent involves satilite communication technology. After a jury trial, Northpoint appealed the lower court's finding of invalidity of Northpoint's patent claims. The CAFC divided on how the claims should be constructed.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion.

Monday, June 27, 2005


The Supreme court held that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.
Listen to the Supreme Court's published opinion. <[MP3]>

Rasmusson, et al. v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation

Rasmusson and Smithkline appealed from an interference proceeding before the BAPI regarding their anti-cancer and anti-hair-loss drug. Both parties prevail on their arguments -- Rasmusson argued Smithkline's claims were anticipated and Smithkline argued that Rasmusson's claims were not enabled.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Sunday, June 26, 2005

About Digitized Audio Patent Case law Summaries

The digital audio files available on this site are created from the text of the published court opinion. Before creating the MP3, the text is edited (by computer and by person) to allow for easier understanding in spoken form ("listenability")
  • Most citations are not read.
  • If a citations appears contextually in a sentance, only the name of the case is read.
  • Parenthetical phrases following citations are not read.
  • Certain words frequently used in party names (LLC, Co., Inc.) are now skipped while reading.
  • Page numbers are no longer read.
  • A case summary is added.
  • Different voices are used to read the case summary, the majority opinion and any dissent.
  • Footnotes not spoken.

A short caption of each case is read first and it contains:
  • The short name of the case.
  • The name of the court.
  • The date of the decision.
  • A short summary of the case.
The resulting text is read aloud by various computer voices. Hearing the case without the forgoing information is considerably less effort for the listener. Finally, the voice is converted into an MP3 and made availble via the web and RSS. Software assists the process, but results are not guaranteed. Please check with primary sources before relying on any information found on this site.

What is Podcasting? Why does one Podcast? How?

What is Podcasting?
Podcasting allows individuals to subscribe to websites that provide digital-audio (MP3) such that the individuals' computer, MP3player, PDA or cell phone always has the latest MP3s available without visiting the website. The only effort required for the subscriber is to subscribe and configure the service in a podcasting software program (typically "iTunes") or other RSS Newsreader. This podcasting software automatically detects when new MP3s are available, and loads them into the iPod or mp3 player, as required whenever the MP3 player is connected to the computer.

Why does one Podcast?
Most people podcast for entertainment purposes, for example, having new and unusual music available when away from the Internet. The purpose of this website is to provide informational patent law MP3s that may be used to turn less productive time, such as commuting or exercising, into a learning opportunity.

How does one Podcast?
Podcasting requires podcasting software. Any of the following will suffice:

Download and install your podcasting client according to the instructions provided. After installation, you will need to configure your podcasting client to monitor for new mp3 files. The easiest way to do this is to click this XML button , which may auto-subscribe your podcasting software to this website. If you land on a new webpage, you may click the "One Click Subscription" button, which may also auto-configure your podcasting software. Finally, you may need to manually setup your podcasting client by right click the XML button, copying the link and pasting the link into your podcasting software.

Good luck
Good luck configuring your podcasting software. We are not available to assist users with configuring their personal computers. However, please pass along any helpful hints that we can pass along to other listeners.

Untested, but helpful, Podcasting Links
These were helpful to at least one Patent Pod listener -- your milage may vary.

Friday, June 24, 2005

Invention Submission Corporation v. Dudas

Plaintiff originally brought action against the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) after the PTO advertised information about avoiding "invention promotion scams". In a previous appeal, the 4th Circuit found a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In this opinion, the 4th Circuit affirms the lower Court's denial of the Plaintiff's motion to amend it's complaint to create subject matter jurisdiction.
Listen to the 4th Circuit's published opinion.

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Prima Tek II, L.L.C., et al. v. Polypap, et at.

Polypap holds two patents on two disposal flower arranging devices. Prima Tek II argues on appeal that the Polyapp patents are anticipated and not new. The CAFC found that limitations not in the claims may not be imported from the specification, and the Polyapp claims were invalid.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Fort James Corporation v. Solo Cup Company

Fort James submitted a covenant not to sue during post trial proceedings when Solo sought a counterclaim of unenforceability. The District Court found no further live case or controversy. Solo appealed this ruling, and the CAFC found that the literal application of Teva v. Pfizer was improper.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Monday, June 20, 2005

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., et al.

Checkpoint Systems sued All-Tag for infringement of their patented, disposable, deactivatable anti-theft security devices. All-Tag motion for summary judgment was granted because Checkpoint failed to name all inventors. On Appeal, the CAFC found that there was a material issue of fact when Checkpoints statements regarding inventorship during prosecution conflicted with later statements during litigation declarations.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. <[MP3]>

Friday, June 17, 2005

Upsher-Smith Laboratories v. PamLab

Upsher-Smith sued PamLab claiming that PamLab was infringing Upsher-Smith's patents protecting vitamin supplements that are essentially free of anti-oxidants. The CAFC upheld the lower court's ruling that the patent was anticipated when the prior art taught that anti-oxidants were optional.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Default Proof Credit Card System v. Home Depot

Default Proof patented technology protected over-the-counter, pre-paid debit cards purchased through a point-of-sale machine. The "means-plus-function" claim was found indefinite under section 112 because the specification failed to disclose any structure linked to the function of dispensing credit cards. The CAFC further found that expert testimony could not cure the defect in the specification. Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Ultra-Precision Manufacturing v. Ford Motor Co.

Ultra-Precision, during a non-confidential relationship and without claiming trade secret, solved a problem with one of Ford's air compressors, which Ford later incorporated into its vehicles. Ultra-Precision sought restitution through an unjust enrichment claim under Michigan law. The CAFC found that Michigan law was preempted by Federal patent law when the effect of the unjust enrichment claim would result in a patent-like royalty for the claimant. Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Thursday, June 09, 2005

Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.

Princeton asserted their patent rights on capillary electrophoresis technology against Beckman. Beckman persuaded the lower court to set aside the jury verdict because those skilled in the art at the time of the invention understood coiling of capillary tubes, the relevant prior art was analogous and the nature of the problem itself suggested the solution. The CAFC affirmed.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Boss Control, Inc., et al. v. Bombardier, Inc., et al.

Boss Control filed suit against Bombardier for infringement of its' power interrupt patent. The lower court granted summary judgment for Bombardier after construing the claims of the patent during the pre-trial Markman hearing. The CAFC affirmed that construction of the word "interrupt", as defined in the specification, precluded the Bombardier technology notwithstanding the dictionary definition or even the prosecution history. Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Texas Instruments

Qualcomm and Texas Instruments entered into a patent cross-licensing agreement for technology related to digital wireless technology called CDMA. The court affirmed that Qualcomm's breach of the confidentiality agreement was not material and that Texas Instruments subsequent lawsuit did not breach the covenant not to sue.
Listen to the Delaware Supreme Court's published opinion. [MP3]

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

The trial court found Purdue's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during prosecution. Notwithstanding that the patent claims might have been otherwise enforceable, Purdue's repeated assertions of "unexpected results" that were based on insight rather than scientific evidence was material evidence of inequitable conduct and intent to deceive could be inferred from the same evidence. Listen to the CAFC's published opinion. [MP3]