Saturday, July 30, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Landers patented a method and apparatus for horizontal well drilling. Landers provided drilling equipment to Sanders in exchange for royalties. The C.A.F.C. construed the term "cutter head" to not be means-plus-function because there was sufficient intrinsic evidence of structural. However, the court goes on to affirm non-infringement because the "saw blade" used by Sideways was not an equivalent structure merely because it was interchangable with the "cutter head".
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Transonic owns a patent on a method and apparatus to measure blood flow and recirculation in hemodialysis shunts. The C.A.F.C. construed the claims that were subject to a broadening amendment according to the doctorine of claim differentiation.
- MP3: Transonic Systems, Inc. v. Non-Invasive Medical Technologies Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2005) (nonprecidential) (citations omitted)
- PDF: Transonic Systems, Inc. v. Non-Invasive Medical Technologies Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2005) (nonprecidential) (full text)
- IPBiz: Another district court claim construction reversed (Transonic)
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Hartco owns a design patent claiming a "novetly trailer hitchcover featuring a three-bladed marine propeller". Hartco entered into a distributor arrangement with Wang to sell its patented product. Near the end of their distribution agreement, Hartco sought to raise the price by 40%. Wang responded by patenting and selling its own four-bladed marine propeller. Hartco sued for infringement of its design patent, product design trade dress, and product packaging trade dress. The CAFC held that the design patent only covers ornamental features, and the number of blades was an ornamental feature. Further, the CAFC, applying the law of the 5th Circuit, found that a product design may not be inheriently distinctive as a matter of law, and substantial evidence of secondary meaning must be shown to prevail on a claim of trade dress infringement.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Battiston appealed the BPAI's standard of obviousness. The CAFC found that the motivation to combine reference may "flow from the nature of the problem."
Monday, July 18, 2005
Izumui holds an electric razor patent. The CAFC refused to improperly import limitations into the claims from the specification.
Sunday, July 17, 2005
The CAFC affirmed the lower court's holding of patent infringement. Eli Lilly hold a patent for a method of treating premenstrual syndrome (PMS) through drug therapy. Teva argued that the claim language "prior to the onset of menstrual period" should be construed to exclude continuous treatment. Teva also unpersuasively argued evidence of obviousness.
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.
- Most citations are not read. However, if the citation appears contextually in a sentance, 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.
- Different voices are used to read the case summary, the majority opinion and any dissent.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
However, the dissent argued that there was no further distinction between supplying and copying under section 271(f) for software technology.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Phillips v. AWH Corporation, et al.
The dissent would have overturned construction of claims as a matter of law.
This case, of course, had many, many amicus curie briefs.
The dissent agreed with the reasoning of the majority. The dissent went further to say that the TTAB erred when they refused to consider evidence presented by the Appelant, including, on-line advertising click through rates, traffic statistics from the website, evidence of their success in the marketplace, etc.
Listen to the CAFC's published opinion.
Friday, July 01, 2005
The Supreme Court held that 35 USC 271(e)(1) provides protection from patent infringment as long as the tested drug could reasonable become the subject of an FDA submission. This includes pre-clinical studies and pre-clinical research.
Listen to the Supreme Courts's published opinion. [MP3]