March 19, 2007
Posted by
Mark Reichel
/ 6:43 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 the sole patent case that was appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 11th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Polypro, Inc. v. Addison, et al. (03/13/2007, non-precedential): appeal of summary judgment of invalidity for two patents (reversed and remanded), discussion of two patents relating to plastic display bags with clip hooks (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,186,934, entitled “Hanger bag,” and 6,428,208, entitled “Internal profile hanger with outwardly projecting tab member with informational indicia thereon”), discussion of two-prong Pfaff test for the application of the on-sale bar to patents at issue, invention conceived and offered for sale prior to critical date but not yet reduced to practice, no evidence that the drawings and prototype components provided at trial “were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention,” reversed and remanded because a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiffs at trial
Polypro, Inc. v. Addison, et al. (03/13/2007, non-precedential): appeal of summary judgment of invalidity for two patents (reversed and remanded), discussion of two patents relating to plastic display bags with clip hooks (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,186,934, entitled “Hanger bag,” and 6,428,208, entitled “Internal profile hanger with outwardly projecting tab member with informational indicia thereon”), discussion of two-prong Pfaff test for the application of the on-sale bar to patents at issue, invention conceived and offered for sale prior to critical date but not yet reduced to practice, no evidence that the drawings and prototype components provided at trial “were sufficiently specific to enable a person skilled in the art to practice the invention,” reversed and remanded because a reasonable jury could find for the plaintiffs at trial
0 comments:
Post a Comment