SoCal IP Law Group

The SoCal IP Law Blog

Monthly Archives: September 2010

SoCal IP Institute :: Monday, September 27, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, September 27 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following cases:

Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2010) (case is attached)

In a patent infringement suit related to patents claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation, district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to defendant is reversed and remanded as the district court erred in construing the phrase “photoselective vaporization” as a claim limitation, rather than merely a label for the invention as a whole.

The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, Ambu Inc.,  (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2010) (case is attached)

In a patent infringement suit related to artificial airway devices used to deliver anesthetic gases during surgery and to establish unobstructed airways in patients in emergency situations, rulings finding that defendant’s products did not infringe the asserted claims of plaintiff’s ‘100 patent and that all claims were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112 are vacated and remanded where: 1) district court’s summary judgment of no infringement is vacated as it was predicated on the court’s erroneous construction of the claim term “backplate”; and 2) district court’s judgment of invalidity is vacated and remanded as plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue of written description.

Advertisements

SoCal IP Institute :: Monday, September 20, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, September 20 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following cases:

Tri-Star Electronics International, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Durtal SA, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010) (case is attached)

In a suit for infringement of a patent, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring suit because they were not the assignee of the asserted patent.  The assignment of the continuation-in-part application that resulted in the asserted patent was mistakenly assigned to an Ohio corporation that had merged with a California corporation of the same name.  The district court found that the assignment was valid under Ohio law because the Ohio corporation still existed for the purpose of vesting property rights in another entity.  The Federal Circuit on appeal applied Ohio law that required contracts to be read so as to give effect to the intent of the parties.  Because the clear intent of the parties was to assign the application to the inventor’s employer, the Federal Circuit affirmed district court’s holding that the assignment to the successor corporation was valid.

Baseload Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2010) (case is attached)

In a suit for declaratory judgment, the district court held that a settlement agreement between the parties that was the result of a prior case barred the plaintiff from asserting invalidity and unenforceability of a patent.  The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded because the language of the settlement agreement was not clear and unambiguous regarding the release of those claims.

SoCal IP Institute :: Monday September 13, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, Sep 13 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following items:

1)     The USPTO’s updated examination guidelines on the issue of obviousness. (attached)

2)     Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 9/9/2010)

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.