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 patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 32nd calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Dolby Laboratories v. Lucent Technologies (08/08/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (no reasoning provided within the opinion)

Foremost in Packaging Systems (doing business as EnviroCooler) v. Cold Chain Technologies (08/08/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (no reasoning provided within the opinion)

Boston Scientific Scimed (formerly known as Scimed Life Systems) v. Medtronic Vascular (also known as Medtronic AVE) (08/08/2007): appeal of grant of summary judgment affirming the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ final decision denying Scimed the priority benefit of an earlier-filed European patent application for the subject matter at issue in the patent interference (affirmed); discussion of interference between applications owned by Scimed and Medtronic and U.S. Patent No. 5,575,817, entitled “Aorto femoral bifurcation graft and method of implantation”; “At issue here is whether 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)[ ] permits an applicant for a United States patent to benefit from the priority of a foreign application previously filed by an entity that was not acting on behalf of the U.S. applicant at the time of filing. We hold that it does not.”; “[35 U.S.C.] § 119 gives rise to a right of priority that is personal to the United States applicant. … Due to the personal nature of this right, an applicant for a U.S. patent may only benefit from the priority of a foreign application if it was filed by the U.S. applicant or “on his behalf.”

Capital Bridge v. IVL Technologies (08/10/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (no reasoning provided within the opinion)

Honeywell International v. Universal Avionics Systems Corp. (errata) (08/10/2007): errata to correct language present within two consecutive sentences in the July 3, 2007 opinion (link HERE)