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 four patent cases that were appealed from the district court level and decided by the Federal Circuit during the 33rd calendar week of 2007. All opinions are precedential unless otherwise indicated.

Advanced Cardiovascular Systems v. Medtronic Vascular (08/13/2007, non-precedential) (order): motion by ACS to dismissal Medronic’s appeal as premature, which was opposed by Medtronic; original suit brought against Medtronic for patent infringement, and a jury found infringement and determined that the patents were not invalid, for which the district court entered a “judgment” in favor of ACS; Medtronic’s appeal deemed premature “because ACS's request for permanent injunctive relief in its complaint remains pending and thus the case is not final except for an accounting”; “If a case is not fully adjudicated as to all claims for all parties and there is no express determination that there is no just reason for delay or express direction for entry of judgment as to fewer than all of the parties or claims, there is no final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1) and therefore no jurisdiction”; order that ACS’s motion to dismiss is granted

Nisus Corporation v. Perma-Chink Systems, Inc. v. Teschner (08/13/2007, non-precedential): appeal of district court order characterized by Teschner as “adjudging [him] guilty of inequitable conduct” in the prosecution of a patent application”, and appeal of order denying Teschner’s motion to intervene in the underlying patent infringement action (first appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and second appeal affirmed); discussion of patent related to methods of treating trees with boron to prevent infestation (U.S. Patent No. 6,426,095, entitled “Methods and compositions for retarding and eradicating infestation in trees and tree derived products”); “an exception to that general rule [that nonparties may not appeal from judgments or other actions of a district court], a nonparty such as an attorney who is held in contempt or otherwise sanctioned by the court in the course of litigation may appeal from the order imposing sanctions, either immediately or as part of the final judgment in the underlying case”; “a court’s order that criticizes an attorney and that is intended to be “a formal judicial action” in a disciplinary proceeding is an appealable decision, but that other kinds of judicial criticisms of lawyers’ actions are not reviewable”; “we hold that absent a court’s invocation of its authority to punish persons before it for misconduct, actions by the court such as making adverse findings as to the credibility of a witness or including critical language in a court opinion regarding the conduct of a third party do not give nonparties the right to appeal either from the ultimate judgment in the case or from the particular court statement or finding that they find objectionable”; “we conclude that the finding Mr. Teschner seeks to appeal is not a final decision within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), and that Mr. Teschner does not have standing to appeal from the final judgment in the lawsuit between Nisus and Perma-Chink. We therefore dismiss the appeal from the district court’s inequitable conduct decision, and we affirm the denial of Mr. Teschner’s motion to intervene”

Caritas Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Corporation, et al. (08/17/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (case no. 2:05-CV-339); no reasoning provided within the opinion

POSTX Corporation, et al. v. Secure Data in Motion, Inc (doing business as Sigaba) (08/17/2007, non-precedential): affirmed appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case nos. 02-CV-04483 and 03-CV-00521); no reasoning provided within the opinion