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 seventh calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Cargill v. Cambra Foods (02/14/2007): appeal of final judgment of invalidity and unenforceability due to inequitable conduct (affirmed) discussion of four patents relating to high-stability canola oil (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,969,169 and 6,201,145 (both “Non-hydrogenated canola oil for food applications”), 6,270,828 (“Canola variety producing a seed with reduced glucosinolates and linolenic acid yielding an oil with low sulfur, improved sensory characteristics and increased oxidative stability”), and 6,680,396 (“Canola oil with reduced linolenic acid”)), discussion of standard of inequitable conduct and materiality requirement therein, inequitable conduct due to withholding of material data and reasonable examiner standard, intent element met by repeated instances of omission of material information, on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and two conditions for invalidity (sale or offer for sale and that the invention is ready for patenting), patent invalidity due to sale of patented product more than a year before filing, reduction to practice based on unconditional sale

Colassi v. Cybex International (02/14/2007, non-precedential): appeal of jury verdict of infringement (affirmed), discussion of patent relating to an improved deck assembly for supporting the underside of an exercise treadmill belt (U.S. Patent No. 6,123,646 (“Treadmill Belt Support Deck”)), review of claim construction (refusal to introduce limitation as to the construction of the claimed apparatus), means-plus-function infringement analysis (no basis to assign error to district court shown), improper reverse doctrine of equivalents discussion (“de facto summary judgment”) not supported by any facts on the record, review of denial of judgment as a matter of law (evidence generally discussed “treadmills” but did not discuss each of the eleven accused models separately), evidentiary testimony to support conclusion of infringement by all accused models