December 11, 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 101st through the 105th patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit in 2006. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Fuji Photo Film Co., LTD. v. Benun, et al. (08/23/06) (erratum: LINK) : challenge of jurisdiction of court pertaining to preliminary junction against importing infringing products, filing of patent action in district court or before the International Trade Commission, Custom’s seizure of imported goods, general exclusion orders preventing importation of products
Meade Instruments v. Yamcon (08/25/06, non-precedential): appeal of district court’s claim construction (no citations provided), waiver of late doctrine of equivalents argument
Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology (08/30/06): what is and is not considered “prior art,” discussion of obviousness standard, review of specification for meaning of claim language, claim construction not limited to disclosed embodiments, dictionary definitions considered after specification reviewed, discussion of “suggestion or motivation” to combine for obviousness determination, discussion of references “teaching away” from the application, presumption of obviousness when claimed range overlaps with range in the prior art, commercial success (or other secondary considerations); discusses several arguments made during patent prosecution
Alza Corporation v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (06-1047) (09/06/06, non-precedential) – affirmation of claim invalidity (see also below)
Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories (06-1019) (09/06/06): ANDA case; discussion of obviousness and the “underlying factual inquiries” to be made, statutory presumption of patent validity, “motivation-teaching-suggestion” test for obviousness, finding motivation implicitly in the prior art, discussion of drug action and reasonable expectation of success, inadequate research data
Fuji Photo Film Co., LTD. v. Benun, et al. (08/23/06) (erratum: LINK) : challenge of jurisdiction of court pertaining to preliminary junction against importing infringing products, filing of patent action in district court or before the International Trade Commission, Custom’s seizure of imported goods, general exclusion orders preventing importation of products
Meade Instruments v. Yamcon (08/25/06, non-precedential): appeal of district court’s claim construction (no citations provided), waiver of late doctrine of equivalents argument
Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology (08/30/06): what is and is not considered “prior art,” discussion of obviousness standard, review of specification for meaning of claim language, claim construction not limited to disclosed embodiments, dictionary definitions considered after specification reviewed, discussion of “suggestion or motivation” to combine for obviousness determination, discussion of references “teaching away” from the application, presumption of obviousness when claimed range overlaps with range in the prior art, commercial success (or other secondary considerations); discusses several arguments made during patent prosecution
Alza Corporation v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (06-1047) (09/06/06, non-precedential) – affirmation of claim invalidity (see also below)
Alza Corporation v. Mylan Laboratories (06-1019) (09/06/06): ANDA case; discussion of obviousness and the “underlying factual inquiries” to be made, statutory presumption of patent validity, “motivation-teaching-suggestion” test for obviousness, finding motivation implicitly in the prior art, discussion of drug action and reasonable expectation of success, inadequate research data
0 comments:
Post a Comment