July 12, 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 27th calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.
Honeywell International v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. (07/03/2007): appeal of claim construction leading to a jury decision of infringement (affirmed); discussion of patent related to aircraft technology to warn pilots of hazardous flight conditions (U.S. Patent No. 4,914,436, entitled “Ground proximity approach warning system without landing flap input”); “[w]hen a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term”; a claim term may be defined in a particular manner for purposes of a patent even “without an explicit statement of redefinition”; case-specific reasons for affirming the claim construction provided by the district court
Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corporation (07/03/2007): appeal of summary judgment of non-infringement of patent and copyright (affirmed); discussion of patent related to an interactive computer-directed system for guiding emergency rescue personnel in conducting on-site administration of CPR. (U.S. Patent No. 5,913,685, entitled “CPR Computer Aiding”); summary judgment of non-infringement of patent because two claim terms not present in the defendant’s device; “an aspect expressly disavowed during prosecution of the patent cannot be reached under the doctrine of equivalents”; “a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a 'literary work' and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version”; "a text describing how to operate something would not extend copyright protection to the method of operation itself; other people would be free to employ that method and to describe it in their own words"
Honeywell International v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. (07/03/2007): appeal of claim construction leading to a jury decision of infringement (affirmed); discussion of patent related to aircraft technology to warn pilots of hazardous flight conditions (U.S. Patent No. 4,914,436, entitled “Ground proximity approach warning system without landing flap input”); “[w]hen a patentee defines a claim term, the patentee’s definition governs, even if it is contrary to the conventional meaning of the term”; a claim term may be defined in a particular manner for purposes of a patent even “without an explicit statement of redefinition”; case-specific reasons for affirming the claim construction provided by the district court
Hutchins v. Zoll Medical Corporation (07/03/2007): appeal of summary judgment of non-infringement of patent and copyright (affirmed); discussion of patent related to an interactive computer-directed system for guiding emergency rescue personnel in conducting on-site administration of CPR. (U.S. Patent No. 5,913,685, entitled “CPR Computer Aiding”); summary judgment of non-infringement of patent because two claim terms not present in the defendant’s device; “an aspect expressly disavowed during prosecution of the patent cannot be reached under the doctrine of equivalents”; “a computer program, whether in object code or source code, is a 'literary work' and is protected from unauthorized copying, whether from its object or source code version”; "a text describing how to operate something would not extend copyright protection to the method of operation itself; other people would be free to employ that method and to describe it in their own words"
0 comments:
Post a Comment