January 08, 2007
Posted by
Mark Reichel
/ 6:47 AM /
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). My goal is to post new cases on a weekly basis. This posting covers patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the first calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Desa IP, LLC v. EML Technologies, LLC, et al. (01/04/2007, non-precedential): discussion U.S. Patent No. 5,598,066 (directed to motion-activated security lights), review of claim construction, applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, two-step inquiry for means-plus-function (applicability of statute and “identifying the claimed function and corresponding structures in the written description”), presumptions regarding § 112, ¶ 6 pertaining to the use of “means” in the claims
Propat International Corp., et al. v. Rpost, Inc., et al. (01/04/2007): discussion of U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 (“Apparatus and Method for Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents”), who has standing to sue for patent infringement, rights to patents via license agreements, what is considered to be a transfer of all substantial rights in a patent, standing via legally protected interest in a patent, exclusive licensee joining with patent owner in infringement suits, determination of “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285
Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (01/05/2007): discussion of three patents relating to extended release formulations of clarithromycin (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,010,718, 6,551,616, and 6,872,407), overturning a grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, collateral estoppel, discussion of “pharmaceutically acceptable polymer” claim limitation, claim construction based on Markush group included within patent specification, likelihood of proving infringement by doctrine of equivalents
Desa IP, LLC v. EML Technologies, LLC, et al. (01/04/2007, non-precedential): discussion U.S. Patent No. 5,598,066 (directed to motion-activated security lights), review of claim construction, applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, two-step inquiry for means-plus-function (applicability of statute and “identifying the claimed function and corresponding structures in the written description”), presumptions regarding § 112, ¶ 6 pertaining to the use of “means” in the claims
Propat International Corp., et al. v. Rpost, Inc., et al. (01/04/2007): discussion of U.S. Patent No. 6,182,219 (“Apparatus and Method for Authenticating the Dispatch and Contents of Documents”), who has standing to sue for patent infringement, rights to patents via license agreements, what is considered to be a transfer of all substantial rights in a patent, standing via legally protected interest in a patent, exclusive licensee joining with patent owner in infringement suits, determination of “exceptional” case under 35 U.S.C. § 285
Abbott Laboratories v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (01/05/2007): discussion of three patents relating to extended release formulations of clarithromycin (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,010,718, 6,551,616, and 6,872,407), overturning a grant of preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion, collateral estoppel, discussion of “pharmaceutically acceptable polymer” claim limitation, claim construction based on Markush group included within patent specification, likelihood of proving infringement by doctrine of equivalents
1 comments:
Perhaps you should mention that part of the Propat opinion was en banc?
Post a Comment