June 26, 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 first two patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 25th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker- Hannifin Corporation (06/18/2007, non-precedential): appeal of grant of summary judgment of infringement and patent validity and the issuance of a permanent injunction (reversed and remanded); discussion of patent related to pipe fitting technology (U.S. Patent No. 6,079,749, entitled “Preassembled fitting for use with corrugated tubing”, and U.S. Patent No. 6,428,052, entitled “Fitting for use with corrugated tubing”); "a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art" (KSR citation); "[I]t can be important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the elements in the way the claimed new invention does” (KSR citation); due to the existence of multiple genuine issues of material fact, the district court's grants of summary judgment was reversed, its grant of a permanent injunction was vacated, and the case was remanded

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corporation, et al. (06/18/2007): appeal of judgment that specific claims of the patent at issue are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 2 (affirmed); discussion of patent related to a device and method for removing blood from a species (U.S. Patent No. 6,602,502, entitled “Methods and devices for removing species”);“[i]f an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the second paragraph of § 112;” “[w]hen a claim uses the term “means” to describe a limitation, a presumption inheres that the inventor used the term to invoke § 112, ¶ 6”; “[W]hile it is true that the patentee need not disclose details of structures well known in the art, the specification must nonetheless disclose some structure;” the claim limitation “control means” had no corresponding structure described in the specification as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6

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)