1. Yip v.
Hugs to Go LLC, 2010-1112, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10932, May 28, 2010, Decided, THIS DECISION
WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT.
PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
OVERVIEW:
Complaint alleging
infringement of patents and copyrights for children's sound-based books was
properly dismissed since prior actions alleging same infringement barred claims
against book seller and its owner by res judicata and collateral estoppel, and
there were no allegations that successor to seller existed at time of alleged
infringement.
CORE
TERMS: final
judgment, res judicata, pro se, leave to amend, prior suits, patent, struck,
present action, notice of appeal, infringing ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Yip
v. Hugs to Go LLC
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Yip v. Hugs to Go LLC
2. Leviton
Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc., 2009-1421, UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10917, May 28,
2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
While a patentee's
failure to disclose another application during prosecution of a similar patent
was material because a reasonable examiner would want to consider both
applications, a summary judgment finding of inequitable conduct supporting
attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C.S. § 285 was not proper because facts were in
dispute regarding intent.
CORE
TERMS: patent,
inequitable conduct, summary judgment, disclosure, examiner, disclose,
inventor, inventorship, deceptive, double-patenting ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Leviton
Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Leviton Mfg. Co. v. Universal Sec. Instruments, Inc.
3. Dow
Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd., 2009-1524, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10916, May 28, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
Patent invalidity
claim should have been dismissed by the district court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction where the patentee offered a covenant not to sue to the
party claiming invalidity because the covenant extinguished any current or
future Article III case or controversy between the parties involved in the
infringement suits.
CORE
TERMS: web,
user, covenant, formatting, patent, format, tag, invalidity, infringement,
skill ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Dow
Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Dow Jones & Co. v. Ablaise Ltd.
4. Fujifilm
Corp. v. Benun, 2009-1487, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 605 F.3d 1366; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10827, May 27, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
Patents directed to
lens-fitted film packages, or single-use cameras, were infringed by refurbishment
in a foreign country and re-importation into the U.S. since recent precedent
did not eliminate the territoriality requirement for a patent-exhausting first
sale, and a reasonable royalty was properly determined in proportion to the
royalty base.
CORE
TERMS: royalty,
patent, infringing, royalty rate, contempt, infringement, chips, new trial,
exhaustion, practicing ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Fujifilm
Corp. v. Benun
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun
5. In re
Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams., Miscellaneous Docket No. 920, UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 605 F.3d 1373; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS
10837, May 27, 2010, Decided, As Corrected June 2, 2010.
OVERVIEW:
Where an alleged
patent infringer sought a protective order, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), to bar
to patent prosecution by counsel who gained access in litigation to its
confidential documents, a district court was required to apply Federal Circuit
precedent to determine which attorneys should be covered by the bar.
CORE TERMS:
patent, competitive,
protective order, disclosure, inadvertent, interim, inventions, confidential,
prosecuting, trial counsel ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of In
re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of In re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams.
6. Vizio,
Inc. v. ITC, 2009-1386, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL
CIRCUIT, 605 F.3d 1330; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10724, May 26, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
International Trade
Commission properly found that makers of certain digital television products
violated 19 U.S.C.S. § 1337 through importation or sale of digital televisions
that infringed claims of a patent. However, products that employed a
"work-around" did not infringe because they did not satisfy all of
the patent claim limitations.
CORE
TERMS: map,
channel, datastream, decoding, infringement, stream, packetized, suitable,
invention, packet ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Vizio,
Inc. v. ITC
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Vizio, Inc. v. ITC
7. Honeywell
Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 2008-5181, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10577, May 25, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
Patentee had standing
to pursue a claim for just compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act, 35
U.S.C.S. § 183, for the government's pre-issuance use of its night vision
goggles invention because the patent at issue resulted from the original patent
application, as amended, on which the government issued the secrecy order.
CORE
TERMS: display,
color, red, red light, band, filter, perceptible, cockpit, invention, disclose
...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Honeywell
Int'l, Inc. v. United States
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. United States
8. Carter
v. ALK Holdings, Inc., 2008-1168, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 605 F.3d 1319; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10456; 94 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA)
1769, May 24, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
Determination of
patent attorney's compliance with Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP)
and Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was a necessary element of the
malpractice claim. Count VIII, which alleged violation of fiduciary duty,
involved a substantial question of federal patent law and, as to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 11, was not frivolous.
CORE
TERMS: patent,
inventor's, frivolous, patent law, practitioner, trademark, invention,
fiduciary duty, malpractice, federal law ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Carter
v. ALK Holdings, Inc.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Carter v. ALK Holdings, Inc.
9. Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc., 2009-1147, 2009-1162, UNITED STATES
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 605 F.3d 1305; 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS
10457; 94 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1856, May 24, 2010, Decided
OVERVIEW:
Elements of equitable
estoppel were established without material factual dispute; thus, district court
did not abuse discretion in weighing equities. Court affirmed ruling that
patent holder was equitably estopped from suing alleged infringer for
infringement. Act of bringing suit did not produce an exceptional case in terms
of 35 U.S.C.S. § 285.
CORE
TERMS: patent,
infringement, patentee, silence, inequitable conduct, equitable estoppel,
misleading, infringer, exceptional, summary judgment ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Aspex
Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Clariti Eyewear, Inc.
10. Microthin.com,
Inc. v. SiliconeZone USA, LLC, 2010-1079, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10275, May 20, 2010,
Decided, THIS DECISION WAS ISSUED AS UNPUBLISHED OR NONPRECEDENTIAL AND
MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENT. PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
OVERVIEW:
Where the independent
claims of the patent in suit did not limit the description of thin non-slip
pads to being not sticky to the touch, the district court had not erred in
finding the independent claims to be invalid as anticipated, under 35 U.S.C.S.
§ 282.
CORE
TERMS: patent,
non-slip, surface, invention, specification, discovery, sticky, jacket, summary
judgment, mat ...
Lexis.com subscribers can view the enhanced version of Microthin.com,
Inc. v. SiliconeZone USA, LLC
Non-subscribers can use lexisOne's Free Case Law search to view the free,
un-enhanced version of Microthin.com, Inc. v. SiliconeZone USA, LLC