May 08, 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 three patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 18th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

E-Pass Technologies v. Microsoft Corporation, et al. (05/02/2007, non-precedential): appeal of summary judgment of noninfringement by both defendants, finding no direct or indirect infringement (affirmed); discussion of patent related to a method and device for storing information from various sources, such as credit cards, on one multi function card. (U.S. Patent No. 5,276,311, entitled “Method and device for simplifying the use of a plurality of credit cards, or the like”); challenge of claim construction as being improper at the district court level; Sometimes claim construction “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words”; comparison of plaintiff’s construction for one claim to the same construction in other claims would result in multiple meanings of the same claim term (fact-specific case)

Foremost in Packaging Systems (Doing Business as Envirocooler) v. Cold Chain Technologies (05/02/2007): appeal of claim construction and ruling of noninfringement (affirmed); discussion of patent related to insulated shipping containers designed to carry items such as pharmaceuticals and human tissue (U.S. Patent No. 5,924,302, entitled “Insulated shipping container”); discussion of the claim term “slidingly engage”; no literal infringement shown, and in this particular case, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents cannot be invoked (fact-specific case)

Syngenta Seeds v. Monsanto Company, et al. (05/03/2007): appeal of determination of no infringement as a matter of law regarding two patents, but that claims of a third patent were infringed but invalid (affirmed); discussion of three patents related to a transgenic corn plant modified to produce and insecticidal protein (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,075,185 and 6,320,100, both entitled “Synthetic DNA sequence having enhanced insecticidal activity in maize,” and 6,403,865, entitled “Method of producing transgenic maize using direct transformation of commercially important genotypes”); discussion of invalidity of patent for obviousness based on prior art published patent application disclosure; “[w]hether there was a reasonable expectation of success is a question of fact,” and “[w]hether the degree of success is unexpected in light of suggestions in the prior art is a factual question”; discussion of claim construction led to the application of the doctrine of waiver; [t]he doctrine of waiver precludes a party from advocating a new theory of claim constriction on appeal,” and because the plaintiff never raised its present proposed construction before the district court, its proposed construction was waived

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)