1. Powertech Tech. v. Tessera,
Inc., 2010-1489, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT,
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19951, September 30, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
CORE TERMS: chip,
patent, license agreement, royalty, customer, licensee's, infringement,
licensed, royalty payments, semiconductor ...
2. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Sci.
Corp., 2010-1311, 2010-1316, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19738, September 28, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
CORE TERMS: patent,
stent, undulating, crest, trough, inequitable conduct, infringement,
unenforceable, literally, intent to deceive ...
3. Spread Spectrum Screening
LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2011-1019, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19603, September 26, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Appellate
court did not have jurisdiction over a patentee's appeal of an order staying
the patentee's case against various customers of an alleged infringer pending
resolution of the primary infringement case transferred to a federal court in
New York because the stay was not a final appealable order under 28 U.S.C.S. §
1295(a)(1).
CORE TERMS: customer,
reexamination, injunction, patent, manufacturer's, infringement, appealable,
software, interlocutory, screening ...
4. Marine Polymer Techs. v.
Hemcon, Inc., 2010-1548, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19602, September 26, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Court
of appeals considered fact that patentee asked PTO to reexamine U.S. Patent No.
6,864,245, which protected a polymer that accelerated hemostasis, after
patentee filed a patent infringement action against a competitor, and reversed
a judgment against the competitor because it was entitled to absolute intervening
rights under 35 U.S.C.S. § 252.
CORE TERMS: reexamination,
reactivity, intervening rights, polymer, patent, biocompatible, elution,
biocompatibility, biological, reissue ...
5. Cordance Corp. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 2010-1502, 2010-1545, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19441, September 23, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Because
a patentee failed to prove patent 3 was entitled to claim priority to a 1993
conception document (CD) by failing to link any CD disclosure to any
limitations in the asserted claims, it was not error under 35 U.S.C.S. § 120 to
grant JMOL that patent 3's effective date was the date of the patent of which
it was a continuation in part.
CORE TERMS: feedback,
invalid, invalidity, metadata, customer, jury's verdict, patent, anticipated,
written description, automatically ...
6. Monsanto Co. v. Bowman,
2010-1068, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S.
App. LEXIS 19303, September 21, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: District
court did not err when it found that a farmer infringed U.S. Patent Nos.
5,352,605 and RE39,247E when he planted soybean seeds that were not purchased
from a company that held both patents or one of its licensees. The farmer
created a newly infringing article when he used commodity seeds that contained
the patent holder's technology.
CORE TERMS: seed,
bowman, technology, patent, commodity, grower, planting, soybean, infringement,
sequence ...
7. In re Leithem,
2011-1030, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S.
App. LEXIS 19231, September 19, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Where
Board of Patent Appeals (BPA) affirmed an examiner's rejection but relied on a
new ground, with the examiner citing prior art as teaching a fluff pulp, and
the applicants appealed arguing it did not contain such a teaching, a view
contrary to the examiner's assertion, the BPA's decision was not in accordance
with law under 5 U.S.C.S. § 706.
CORE TERMS: pulp,
examiner's, fluff, fluffed, teach, wet-laid, caustic, disclose, cold, diaper
...
8. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu,
LLC, 2010-1544, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2011
U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, September 15, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Dismissal
of patent claims for lack of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C.S. § 101
was reversed where, as a practical application of the general concept of
advertising as currency and an improvement to prior art technology, a claimed
invention was not so manifestly abstract as to override the statutory language of
35 U.S.C.S. § 101.
CORE TERMS: subject
matter, invention, patent, media, consumer, sponsor, message, eligibility,
technology, patentability ...
9. Markem-Imaje Corp. v.
Zipher Ltd., 2010-1305, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18670, September 9, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: District
court's narrow construction that "drive" as used in a patent claiming
a device for transfer printing required that the supply spool must always
rotate to control the tension was incorrect because "drive" was
properly construed to mean the application of torque to the spools, whether the
torque caused rotation or resisted it.
CORE TERMS: spool,
drive, ribbon, tape, specification, torque, rotate, measurement, invention,
rotation ...
10. Harari v. Lee,
2010-1075, 2010-1076, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT,
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18210, September 1, 2011, Decided [enhanced version
available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version
available from lexisONE Free Case Law]
OVERVIEW: Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in an analysis regarding a patent
application's incorporation by reference of an earlier application because
broad and unequivocal language made clear that the entire earlier application
disclosure was incorporated. However, with proper claim construction the claims
lacked written description support.
CORE TERMS: cell,
memory, erase, verify, bit, incorporation, threshold, patent, written
description, bias ...
....
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate
site.