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Omegaflex, Inc. v. Parker- Hannifin Corporation (06/18/2007, non-precedential): appeal of grant of summary judgment of infringement and patent validity and the issuance of a permanent injunction (reversed and remanded); discussion of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