SoCal IP Law Group

The SoCal IP Law Blog

Monthly Archives: November 2010

SoCal IP Institute :: November 29, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, November 29 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:

Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1204 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2010) (case attached) In a patent infringement suit related to a genus of tetrazine derivative compounds and methods for treating cancer by administering those compounds, district court’s judgment finding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for prosecution laches and inequitable conduct is reversed where: 1) the district court committed legal error in holding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for prosecution laches in the absence of any evidence of intervening rights; and 2) district court’s decision holding the ‘291 patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct is reversed as the district court committed clear error in finding that plaintiff acted with deceptive intent.

Hyatt v. Kappos, No. 07-1066  (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2010) (case attached) In plaintiff’s civil action against the Director of the Patent Office pursuant to 35 U.S.C. section 145, related to a patent application for a computerized display system for processing image information, district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Director is vacated and remanded as 35 U.S.C. section 145 imposes no limitation on an applicant’s right to introduce new evidence before the district court, apart from the evidentiary limitations applicable to all civil actions contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as such, the district court abused its discretion when it excluded petitioner’s declaration under the wrong legal standard.

Advertisements

SoCal IP Institute :: November 22, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, November 22 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:

A123 Sys. V. Hydro-Quebec, No. 10-1059 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2010) (case attached) In plaintiff’s suit seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity of two patents related to a genus of lithium based cathode materials, district court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to reopen and dismissal of the declaratory judgment action is affirmed where: 1) because the defendant had acquired less than all substantial rights in the patents in suit, University of Texas (UT) is a necessary party to plaintiff’s declaratory judgment action; 2) UT’s waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity in a patent infringement suit in the Northern District of Texas did not result in a waiver of immunity in this separate infringement action, and absent such a waiver, UT cannot be joined; and 3) because three of the four Rule 19(b) factors weigh in favor of holding UT to be an indispensable party, UT was not only a necessary party, but also and indispensable party, making dismissal appropriate.

Finjan v. Secure Computing, No. 09-1576  (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2010) (case attached) In a patent infringement suit involving “proactive scanning” technology for computer security, a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and district court’s award of damages and an entry of permanent injunction against the defendants is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court’s denial of defendants’ motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement of plaintiff’s system and storage medium claims is affirmed as the jury’s infringement verdict on the system and media claims was based on a legally sufficient evidentiary basis and consistent with the weight of the evidence; 2) district court’s denial of defendants’ motions for JMOL of noninfringement of the method claims is reversed as no reasonable jury could have concluded that defendants infringed the method claims; 3) district court’s denial of defendants’ motions for JMOL or new trial on damages is affirmed; and 4) the matter is remanded for the district court to assess post-judgment and pre-judgment damages.

SoCal IP Law Institute :: November 15, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, November 15 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:

Nuance Comm. V. Abby Software House, 10-1100 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 12, 2010) (case attached)  In plaintiff’s suit for infringement of its patent, related to methods and systems for performing optical character recognition, recognizing documents, and managing documents, district court’s judgment is reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court’s dismissal of defendant-Abby Production for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed because defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of California, because plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement arise out of those activities, and because the assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair; 2) district court’s dismissal of defendant Abby Software is vacated and remanded as the record calls for further discovery on the jurisdiction questions; and 3) district court erred in dismissing the defendants for improper service of process.

Abraxis Bioscience v. Navinta, 09-1539 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 9, 2010) (case attached)  In plaintiff’s suit for infringement of its patents related to methods of using low concentrations of ropivacaine hydrochloride to treat pain, district court’s finding that defendant’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product would directly infringe and contribute and induce infringement of certain claims of plaintiff’s patents is vacated remanded as the district court erred in failing to dismiss plaintiff’s action for lack of standing because, without the transfer of legal title of the patents, plaintiff had no standing to bring this infringement action.

SoCal IP Institute :: November 8, 2010

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, November 8 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE Ethics credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following:

Proposed CA Ethical Rules (Sept. 22, 2010)(attached)  After 9 years of debate, the State Bar of California has adopted proposed ethical rules which require Supreme Court approval before taking effect.  We will discuss the proposed revisions to the rules and, in particular, the areas where the proposed rules continue to differ from the Model Rules: Reporting Attorney Misconduct, Client Confidences, Unconscionable Fees, Attorney Competence and Moral Turpitude.

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, No. 08-56667 (9th Cir. Nov. 3, 2010) (case attached)  On appeal of an order denying an extension of time to file an opposition to a motion for summary judgment and denial of a motion to accept the late-filed opposition, the 9th Circuit reversed where the District Court failed to show bad faith or prejudice to the adverse party in denying the extension request and applied the incorrect legal standard in deciding the request to accept the late-filed opposition.  The 9th Circuit also criticized opposing counsel’s refusal to grant an extension request and reminded the opposing counsel of Attorney Guidelines of Civility & Prof. § 6.