October 16, 2006
I will periodically post case citations from the Federal Circuit along with the date of the opinion/order and a brief list of the legal topics discussed therein (specifically those with additional embedded case law citations). This posting covers the eighty-first through the eighty-fifth IP cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit in 2006. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific (06/29/2006, non-precedential): inequitable conduct regarding prior art reference disclosure, standard for "materiality" of a prior art reference, standard for "intent to deceive" the patent office, conduct pertaining to one patent tainting another patent, patent citing to only one solution to two listed problems
Momentus Golf v. Swingrite Golf Corp. (06/30/2006): doctrine of prosecution disclaimer (statements made to overcome rejection during prosecution), different interpretations of responses during prosecution; dissent discusses response language from an additional perspective
LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics (07/07/2006): implied licenses & requisite burden of proof, patent exhaustion doctrine (a.k.a. first sale doctrine) as triggered by an "unconditional sale," licenses for entire portfolios of patents, pursuit of patent infringement claims, claim language and applicability of § 112 ¶ 6, claim differences as assisting with claim interpretation, cited prior art as assisting with claim meanings, claim scope disclaimer within specification, "all limitations rule" of doctrine of equivalents
Rogers v. Desa International (07/13/2006, non-precedential): review of summary judgment for invalidity as being obvious, Graham factors regarding obviousness, discussion of individual Graham factors as applicable to the claimed invention and the noted prior art
Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase (07/13/2006): challenge of jury verdict regarding sufficiency of jury instructions, notable list of appellate standards of review regarding jury instructions, expert testimony, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct; suppression or concealment of the invention, each element of a patent claim as being material, lack of disclosure of photographs to the patent office during prosecution, materiality and intent of inequitable conduct, applicants erring on the side of disclosure
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific (06/29/2006, non-precedential): inequitable conduct regarding prior art reference disclosure, standard for "materiality" of a prior art reference, standard for "intent to deceive" the patent office, conduct pertaining to one patent tainting another patent, patent citing to only one solution to two listed problems
Momentus Golf v. Swingrite Golf Corp. (06/30/2006): doctrine of prosecution disclaimer (statements made to overcome rejection during prosecution), different interpretations of responses during prosecution; dissent discusses response language from an additional perspective
LG Electronics v. Bizcom Electronics (07/07/2006): implied licenses & requisite burden of proof, patent exhaustion doctrine (a.k.a. first sale doctrine) as triggered by an "unconditional sale," licenses for entire portfolios of patents, pursuit of patent infringement claims, claim language and applicability of § 112 ¶ 6, claim differences as assisting with claim interpretation, cited prior art as assisting with claim meanings, claim scope disclaimer within specification, "all limitations rule" of doctrine of equivalents
Rogers v. Desa International (07/13/2006, non-precedential): review of summary judgment for invalidity as being obvious, Graham factors regarding obviousness, discussion of individual Graham factors as applicable to the claimed invention and the noted prior art
Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase (07/13/2006): challenge of jury verdict regarding sufficiency of jury instructions, notable list of appellate standards of review regarding jury instructions, expert testimony, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct; suppression or concealment of the invention, each element of a patent claim as being material, lack of disclosure of photographs to the patent office during prosecution, materiality and intent of inequitable conduct, applicants erring on the side of disclosure
0 comments:
Post a Comment