Bayer Shering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories: Application of “Obvious to Try” Test
Submitted by Brook B. Bond on 16 Aug 2009In Bayer Shering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 575 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted and applied the “obvious to try” test for obviousness under the guidance of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). continue reading...
Exergen v. Wal-Mart: Jury Verdict Reversed and New Standards for Pleading Inequitable Conduct
Submitted by Peter M. Midgley on 09 Aug 2009In Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict of $2.5 million for willful patent infringement of three patents asserted by Exergen Corp. (“Exergen”). The patents at issue related to various infrared thermometer technologies. The accused devices were designed and manufactured by S.A.A.T. Systems Application Of Advanced Technology, Ltd. (“SAAT”). continue reading...
Net MoneyIn v. VeriSign: To Anticipate, Disclosed Elements Must be “Arranged as in the Claim”
Submitted by Matthew L. Whipple on 19 Jul 2009In Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that a prior art reference that teaches every element of a claim may still not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 unless the disclosed elements are also “arranged as in the claim.” continue reading...
Ecolab v. FMC Corp.: Claim Construction in Light of Chef America
Submitted by Benjamin E. Hoopes on 10 Jun 2009The general rule of thumb is that the attorney is his or her own lexicographer, and that once a term is defined the court will not redraft the scope of the claim language. In other words, courts generally may not re-draft claims; they must construe the claims as written. continue reading...
Agilent Technologies v. Affymetrix: Claim Construction in Appeals from Interference Proceedings
Submitted by Jeff C. Parry on 10 Jun 2009In Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a district court opinion sustaining a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”). The case arose out of an interference action. continue reading...
In re Nature's Remedies: Printed Publications Under 35 USC § 102(b)
Submitted by Jeff C. Parry on 11 May 2009In re Natures Remedies, Ltd., 315 Fed. Appx. 300, 2009 WL 615841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), reflects a nonprecedential disposition by the Federal Circuit – affirming a decision by the USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (”the Board”) rejecting a claim (upon reexamination) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). continue reading...
Paice v. Toyota and TruePosition v. Andrew: Risks Associated with "Post Judgment" Conduct in Patent Cases
Submitted by John N. Zarian on 09 May 2009Two recent opinions highlight the significant risks associated with “post-judgment” conduct in patent infringement cases. continue reading...
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3