Tag Archives: obviousness

In my view, Obviousness is the most fundamental of patent law doctrines, and certainly much of the work of patent attorneys is to convince patent examiners that the claims are not obvious.

Patent Infringement: Recognition of a problem does not render the solution obvious

Patent, Patent Cases 2004, ,

img080

 

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.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.