Federal Circuit: National Instruments v. MathWorks
Monsanto wins patent infringement appeal over Tennessee farmer
Patent Cooperation Treaty: Chapter II filings in sharp decline
Labor Day in America
CAFC refuses to examine Request for Comments (RFCs) when defining ordinary meaning of claim terms
Juicy Whips up on Orange Bang: CAFC Affirms Entire Market Value Rule
Means-Plus-Function Limitation Rarely Found When Claim Lacks “Means” Language
IBM and Intel license blade server specifications, but not associated patents
Universal Garage Door Opener not subject to DMCA provisions
Patent Infringement: Recognition of a problem does not render the solution obvious
Cardiac Pacemakers (CPI) v. St. Jude Medical
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
CPI (Guidant) controls several patents relating to implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) that are permanently installed under the skin, and that determine abnormal cardiac activity and treat that activity by delivering electrical shocks to the heart muscle in appropriate strengths. CPI charged St. Jude with infringement of two of these patents.
A jury found both patents valid and enforceable, but only one infringed. After trial, the district court granted St. Jude's motions for JMOL -- holding both patents invalid and not infringed. The court also granted a new trial (in the event of reversal) and awarded sanctions for witness misconduct. CPI appealed the judgment of invalidity and non-infringement.
Modern Practice Magazine Provides Legal Insight
Method of Cloning Mammals Issues as Patent
Xechem v. University of Texas
Xechem v. University of Texas (Fed. Cir. 2004) (03-1406).
Xechem brought several claims against the University of Texas that were dismissed after the University asserted Eleventh Amendment and state immunity from suit. The issue on appeal is whether the University is subject to suit in federal court to obtain correction of inventorship in the patents flowing from a collaboration between Xechem and the University. (US-5877205-A). The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal based on Supreme Court precedent.
Federal Circuit: DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners
Chamberlain Group v. Skylink Technologies (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In a well reasoned opinion, the Federal Circuit (GAJARSA) affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit arising under anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).