Case Summaries
[09/09]
Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts
In plaintiff's action seeking a declaratory judgment that defendant's patent related to a flying wind turbine was invalid and unenforceable, district court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment in holding that the terms of the parties' 2008 settlement agreement barred all claims between the parties is reversed as the language of the settlement agreement did not release either claims of infringement of the patent or the accompanying defenses of invalidity or unenforceability.
[09/09]
Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. v. Matrix Laboratories, Ltd.
In a patent infringement suit, related to 1-biphenylmethylimidazole compounds and their use as angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of high blood pressure, district court's decision sustaining the validity of a patent under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed as the district court did not err in holding that defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because defendant failed to show that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the '902 ARBs as lead compounds or, even if they had, that the skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the '902 compounds to synthesize the claimed invention.
[09/09]
Tri-Star Elec. Int'l, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Durtal, SA
In a patent infringement suit, district court's denial of the motion to dismiss for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 12(b)(1) is affirmed as the assignment transferred ownership to Tri-Star of California and the Tri-Star Delaware corporation has standing to bring this suit.
[09/09]
Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to intervertebral implants used to replace discs between vertebrae in the spinal column that have degenerated or become diseased, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL that the asserted claims of the '071 patent are invalid for obviousness is affirmed; 2) district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement is affirmed; 3) district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant's 35 U.S.C. section 112 defenses is affirmed; 4) district court's construction of the term "operative engagement" is affirmed; 5) district court's denial of defendant's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and its grant of summary judgment of infringement with respect to O-Maverick is reversed and remanded for the court to enter judgment of noninfringement with respect to O-Maverick; 6) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL of lost profits is reversed and jury's award of lost profits damages is vacated and remanded for the court to determine any additional reasonable royalty to which plaintiff might be entitled; 7) district court's denial of defendant's motion for JMOL of no willfulness is reversed and the enhanced damages and attorney fee awards vacated; and 8) the matter is remanded for the district court to modify the terms of the permanent injunction by deleting the extraterritorial portion.
[09/08]
In re Specht
[09/07]
Geoddel v. Sugano
In two related patent interference priority contests, related to human fibroblasts interferon used in combating pathogens and tumors, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' decision that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application in awarding appellee priority as to the counts of both interferences is reversed and remanded as the Board's decision that the Japanese Application constitutes constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of these interferences is not in accordance with law, for the Japanese Application does not meet the criteria of section 112, first paragraph, as to this subject matter.
[09/07]
Green Edge Enter., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to a synthetic mulch that is colored with a water based acrylic colorant to imitate natural mulch, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred by invalidating a patent; 2) the district court erred by dismissing defendant's trademark claims; 3) the district court abused its discretion by precluding all damages evidence for the Lanham Act counterclaims; and 4) the district court's holding with respect to counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the mark is affirmed as there was no case or controversy.
[09/03]
Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc.
An order denying counter-claimants damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in an action for trademark infringement against plaintiffs is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar the application of the equitable defense of acquiescence in this instance; 2) plaintiff had permission to use the marks at issue before July 12, 2006; and 3) a remand was proper so that the district court may consider the applicability of plaintiffs' defense of acquiescence in a manner consistent with the circuit court's opinion.
[09/03]
F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records
In a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, judgment in favor of defendant is reversed and an attorney's fees award in its favor is vacated where: 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
[09/02]
Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.
[09/02]
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.
[09/01]
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.
[09/01]
Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement are affirmed; and 2) district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law is reversed and remanded.
[08/31]
Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against Brooks Brothers under 35 U.S.C. section 292, claiming that defendants falsely marked its bow ties, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for lack of standing and denial of government's motion to intervene is reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing as he has sufficient alleged (i) an injury in fact to the United States that (ii) is caused by Brooks Brothers' alleged conduct, attaching the markings to its bow ties, and (iii) is likely to be redressed, with a statutory fine, by a favorable decision; and 2) the district court made an error of law in denying the government's motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2).
[08/30]
Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.
