May 01, 2007

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 two patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 16th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Intamin, LTD. v. Magnetar Technologies, Corp. (04/18/2007) (erratum from 04/19/2007: LINK): appeal of district court ruling of non-infringement and the vacation of a prior award of Rule 11 sanctions (affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded); discussion of patent related to a magnetic braking system for amusement park rides (U.S. Patent No. 6,062,350, entitled “Braking system for an amusement device”); district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement because several limitations were absent in the defendant’s device; “dependent claims can supply additional context for construing the scope of the independent claims associated with those dependent claims”; remanded for review of claim construction and determination of non-infringement; “[a] patentee may draft different claims to cover different embodiments”; remanded for determination of infringement, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; plaintiff’s pre-filing inquiry was reasonable (and thus not subject to Rule 11 sanctions) under the circumstances by reviewing documents pertaining to defendant’s devices, inspecting the devices as installed, taking photographs of the devices, and reviewing the devices with experts

Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc. (04/19/2007, non-precedential): appeal of grant of summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness (affirmed); discussion of two patents related to containers for storing and dispensing pressurized gases for use in the manufacture of semiconductors (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,101,816, entitled “Fluid storage and dispensing system,” and 6,343,476, entitled “Gas storage and dispensing system comprising regulator interiorly disposed in fluid containment vessel and adjustable in situ therein”); defendant asserted invalidity based on four prior art patents, and the district court determined that the asserted patents were invalid for obviousness (anticipation was not addressed); “[u]nder certain circumstances, an expert’s opinion may illuminate disputes of fact, thus requiring a trial”; defendants presented an expert report to dispute what was taught by the prior art, but the appellate court stated that “the report lacks the detail necessary to avoid summary judgment” and that the defendant’s expert “lacked logical continuity, leaving only a conclusory record to oppose summary judgment f obviousness”; district court decision affirmed because the decision was “well supported by the record” and “no issues of material fact remain”

0 comments:

Post a Comment

WIPO Press Releases

WIPO General News

Patent References

Click HERE to search issued U.S. Patents

Click HERE to search published U.S. Patent Applications

Click HERE to browse the MPEP (E8r6 in HTML and PDF, and E8r7 in PDF)

Click HERE to search patent assignments recorded with the USPTO

Click HERE to search Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (rev. 7/1/08)

Click HERE to browse Title 35 of the U.S. Code

Click HERE to view current USPTO fees

Disclaimer

Copyright 2006-2010, Mark Reichel. The Daily Dose of IP is my personal website, and I am not providing any legal advice or financial analysis. Any views expressed herein should not be viewed as being the views of my employer, Ice Miller LLP. Any comments submitted to this blog will not be held in confidence and will not be considered as establishing an attorney-client relationship. Information submitted to this blog should be considered as being public information, and the submitter takes full responsibility for any consequences of any information submitted. No claims, promises, or guarantees are made or available regarding the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this blog or otherwise available by searching from or linking away from this blog.

EPO Updates

Trademark References

Click HERE to search issued and pending U.S. Trademarks

Click HERE to search TTAB proceedings (via TTABVUE)

Click HERE to search trademark assignments recorded with the USPTO

The DDIP Author





Mark Reichel
Reichel IP LLC

I am a patent attorney with Reichel IP LLC, where I concentrate my practice on patent drafting and prosecution, trademarks, and general intellectual property matters. I currently focus on the preparation and prosecution of medical device and other life sciences patent applications, and being actively involved in a number of local not-for-profit organizations.

Click HERE to view my full professional bio at Reichel IP LLC.


There was an error in this gadget

Subscribe/Feedback

Click HERE to join the e-mail list for my blog

Click HERE to provide feedback on the DDIP blog

Fellow Blogs/Bloggers

AwakenIP (Kuester)
Counterfeit Chic (Scafidi)
I/P Updates (Heinze)
Internet Cases (Brown)
Likelihood of Confusion (Coleman)
Patent Baristas (Albainy-Jenei)
Patent Docs (Zuhn et al.)
Patently-O (Crouch)
The 271 Patent Blog (Zura)
The Ice Loop (Ice Miller LLP)
The Indiana Law Blog (Oddi)
The Invent Blog (Nipper)
The Patent Prospector (Odom)
The TTABlog (Welch)