1. V Limelight Networks,
2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417, 2010-1291, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18532, August 31, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
CORE TERMS: infringement,
patent, infringer's, contributory, induced, entity, inducement, provider,
infringe, indirect ...
2. LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta
Computer, Inc., 2011-1440, 2011-1470, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18441, August 30, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Reasonable
royalty damages were deemed minimum amount of infringement damages adequate to
compensate for the infringement, 35 U.S.C.S. § 284. Among other matters, the
court determined that the district court properly granted a new trial on
damages following the first jury verdict. Under facts, use of the entire market
value rule was impermissible.
CORE TERMS: license,
royalty, infringement, laptop, optical, hypothetical, patent, patented,
negotiation, drive ...
3. Static Control Components,
Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., Nos. 09-6287/6288/6449, UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT,
12a0289p.06;, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18316; 2012 FED App. 0289P (6th Cir.),
March 6, 2012, Argued, August 29, 2012, Decided, August 29, 2012, Filed [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Printer
manufacturer's design patents for toner cartridges were invalid as the design
was primarily functional and appearance was not a matter of concern to end
users, as appearance merely assisted buyers to determine which cartridge was
compatible with their printers; a competitor prevailed on its invalidity
defense under 35 U.S.C.S. §§ 171, 282.
CORE TERMS: cartridge,
patent, microchip, prebate, antitrust, infringement, toner, remanufacturer,
customer, counterclaim ...
4. ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v.
Verizon Communs., Inc., 2011-1538, 2011-1567, 2012-1129, 2012-1201, UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18032,
August 24, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: In
a patent infringement case, district court abused its discretion by granting a
permanent injunction because the court's findings that there was irreparable
harm, inadequate remedies at law, and hardship favoring an injunction were
clearly erroneous. An adequate remedy would be an appropriate ongoing royalty
rate for future infringement.
CORE TERMS: television,
patent, channel, interface, controller, infringement, injunction, video,
processor, interactive ...
5. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology
v. United States PTO, 2010-1406, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17679, August 16, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: One
distinction between products of nature and human-made invention for purposes of
35 U.S.C.S. § 101 turned on a change in the claimed composition's identity
compared with what existed in nature. Applying this test to the isolated DNAs,
the court determined that the challenged claims were drawn to patent-eligible
subject matter.
CORE TERMS: patent,
gene, isolated, sequence, molecule, patentable, testing, subject matter,
nucleotide, occurring ...
6. Meyer Intellectual Props. Ltd.
v. Bodum, Inc., 2011-1329, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17137, August 15, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: District
court's grant of summary judgment was reversed, where genuine issues of
material fact remained as to whether the alleged infringer practiced each step
of the asserted method claims, under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(a), and in finding it
had actively induced infringement under 35 U.S.C.S. § 271(b).
CORE TERMS: infringement,
prior art, frother, patent, summary judgment, patents-in-suit, container, milk,
plunger, obviousness ...
7. Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v.
Smith & Nephew, Inc., 2011-1105, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16904, August 13, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: District
court committed error where it granted judgment as a matter of law under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 50(b), of invalidity for obviousness, under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103,
controverting the factual findings of the jury. The court of appeals also
rejected the argument that the licensee waived its right to a jury verdict.
CORE TERMS: wound,
healing, prior art, obviousness, patent, disclose, invention, tissue,
nonobviousness, verdict form ...
8. Whitserve, LLC v. Computer
Packages, Inc., 2011-1206, 2011-1261, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17510, August 7, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Provider
of software programs infringed patents related to automated delivery of
professional services since manual entry of data to start querying process of
provider's system did not preclude system from being automated, but one patent
claim was invalid as anticipated by prior patent, and there was no proper
evidentiary basis for damage award.
CORE TERMS: patent,
royalty, infringement, jury verdict, royalty rate, license, new trial,
post-trial, injunction, backup ...
9. In re Beineke, 2011-1459,
2011-1460, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2012 U.S.
App. LEXIS 16329, August 6, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Applicants
apparent discovery to two oak trees growing on another's property and claimed
cultivation of thereof did not meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C.S. § 161,
mature oak trees found by the applicant were not entitled to plant patent
protection under the statute.
CORE TERMS: plant,
patent, seedling, cultivated, inventor, discovery, patentable, newly, patent
act, cultivation ...
10. Momenta Pharms., Inc. v.
Amphastar Pharms., Inc., 2012-1062, 2012-1103, 2012-1104, UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 686 F.3d 1348; 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 16160,
August 3, 2012, Decided [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
OVERVIEW: Competitors
of a generic drug manufacturer did not infringe the manufacturer's patented
method of testing drug quality since the safe harbor provision of 35 U.S.C.S. §
271(e)(1) precluded infringement even after FDA approval of the competing drugs
based on the use of the method related to submission of information to the FDA
to maintain approval.
CORE TERMS: patent,
safe harbor, enoxaparin, testing, generic, patented, infringement, batch,
manufacture, patented invention ...
....
Sign in with your Lexis.com ID to access Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications.
Click here to order Patent Law treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications.
LexisNexis Publications:
View the LexisNexis
Catalog of Legal and Professional Publications
LexisNexis eBooks
Click
here for a list of available LexisNexis eBooks.
Click here to learn more about
LexisNexis eBooks.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.