1. GE v. ITC, 2010-1223, UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4118,
February 29, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: The
International Trade Commission (ITC) could not rely on its regulations
interpreting patent infringement under 19 U.S.C.S. § 1337 to preclude judicial
review of issues on which the ITC took no position.
CORE TERMS: rotor,
inverter, electric, converter, turbine's, voltage, initial determination,
predetermined, generator, grid ...
2. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, Inc. v.
Monsanto Tech. LLC, 2011-1285, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4027, February 28, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences did not err when it found that U.S. Patent
No. 6,258,999, which concerned transgenic corn, could not benefit from the date
the patent holder filed its application, or when it found that a competitor's
application for a patent was not time-barred under 35 U.S.C.S. § 135(b)(1).
CORE TERMS: pre-critical,
plant, patent, invention, generation, post-critical, embodiment, transgenic,
border, filing date ...
3. Fort Props., Inc. v. Am.
Master Lease LLC, 2009-1242, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3900, February 27, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Patent
claims that disclosed an investment tool designed to enable property owners to
buy and sell properties without incurring tax liability by invoking the
benefits of 26 U.S.C.S. § 1031 were invalid under 35 U.S.C.S. § 101 because the
claims merely attempted to capture unpatentable abstract subject matter.
CORE TERMS: invention,
deedshare, real estate, abstract ideas, patent, subject matter, unpatentable,
portfolio, patentable, patent-eligible ...
4. ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl
River Polymers, Inc., 2011-1078, 2011-1100, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3236, February 17, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Jury
verdict finding that a patent was not invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C.S.
§ 102 was not supported by substantial evidence because the prior art taught
and enabled each and every element of the patent claim at issue. Expert
testimony that the prior art taught away from the invention did not apply to
the anticipation analysis.
CORE TERMS: trade
secrets, ppm, teach, molecular weight, polymer, temperature, invalidity,
substantial evidence, anticipation, alkalinity ...
5. Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.
v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., 2010-1510, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2612, February 10, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Where
substantial evidence supported a jury's verdict finding willful infringement,
and finding no improper inventorship, anticipation, obviousness, or lack of
written description, district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding
enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C.S. § 284, and attorneys' fees and costs under
35 U.S.C.S. § 285.
CORE TERMS: graft,
invention, patent, vascular, inventor, fibril, tube, infringement, distance,
internodal ...
6. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP v.
Apotex Corp., 2011-1182, -1183, -1184, -1185, -1186, -1187, -1188, -1189,
-1190, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App.
LEXIS 2512, February 9, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Even
though claims of holders of patents for uses of drug under 35 U.S.C.S. §
271(e)(2) were within subject matter jurisdiction as related to patents, claims
that generic drugs which excluded patented uses infringed patents were not ripe
since there was no indication that government would require manufacturers to
add patented uses in labeling.
CORE TERMS: patent,
rosuvastatin, calcium, infringement, patented, generic, pharmaceutical,
certification, labeling, act of infringement ...
7. Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC (B-Tek), 2011-1173,
2011-1200, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S.
App. LEXIS 2434, February 8, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: District
court did not commit error in refusing to direct a verdict as a matter of law,
where substantial evidence supported the jury's determination that two patents
for oversized scales were not infringed under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271, and that one
of the patents was also invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.S. § 282.
CORE TERMS: load,
converter, cell, digital, specification, integrating, slope, disclose, teach,
generic ...
8. Adair v. Carter, 2011-1212,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS
2388, February 7, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: The
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) properly determined that a
patent applicant's claim was barred under 35 U.S.C.S. § 135(b)(1), where the
Board found material differences between the post-and pre-critical date claims,
which the applicant failed to rebut.
CORE TERMS: pre-critical,
patent, post-critical, copied, chain, examiner's, heavy, antibody, residue,
region ...
9. Thorner v. Sony Computer
Entm't Am. LLC, 2011-1114, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1864; 101 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1457, February 1,
2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: In
a patent infringement case involving a tactile feedback system for computer
video games, the district court improperly limited the term "attached to
said pad" to mean attachment only to an external surface. The term should
have been given its plain and ordinary meaning which would encompass either
internal or external attachment.
CORE TERMS: specification,
flexible, pad, patentee, surface, embodiment, actuator, embedded, ordinary
meaning, attachment ...
10. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v.
BCG Partners, Inc., Case No. 10 C 715Consolidated with:10 C 716,10 C 718,10 C
720,10 C 721,10 C 726,10 C 882,10 C 883,10 C 884,10 C 885,10 C 929,10 C 931,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN
DIVISION, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16400, February 9, 2012, Decided, February 9,
2012, Filed [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: In
a patent infringement case, the court granted plaintiff summary judgment under
35 U.S.C.S. § 112 because the claim language concerned setting the default
quantity to be used for multiple orders, not how the trader submitted the
order; it was the sizing of the token that set the default quantity; dragging
was the action that started the order.
CORE TERMS: specification,
static, patent, axis, quantity, bid, trader, display, invention, price levels
...
....
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.