UNITED STATES OF AMERICA—PATENTS
US PATENTS
• Affirmed a Texas district court’s judgment for Absolute Software in its dispute with Stealth Signal.
• Affirmed a Massachusetts district court’s summary judgment of invalidity against Atlantic Research Marketing Systems in its patent fight with Stephen P. Troy Jr. and Troy Industries.
• Affirmed a Delaware district court’s summary judgment of non- infringement against Bally Gaming International et al in their patent infringement fight with IGT.
• Affirmed an Ohio district court’s denial of a new trial on infringement, but vacated the court’s denial of a new trial on obviousness in Bettcher Industries’ patent fight with Bunzl USA et ano.
• Affirmed a Wisconsin district court’s JMOL that Boston Scientific does not literally infringe a Cordis patent.
• Affirmed an Indiana district court’s summary judgment of patent infringement against Monsanto in its suit with Vernon Hugh Bowman.
• Affirmed a New York district court’s victory for Unigene Laboratories and Upsher–Smith Laboratories in their patent fight with Apotex.
• Affirmed a Delaware district court’s dismissal of Genetics Institute’s patent interference action against Novartis patents.
• Affirmed a California district court’s summary judgment of invalidity, favouring Retail Decisions in its patent fight against Cybersource.
• Affirmed a Washington state district court’s finding of non-infringement for Flagstar Bancorp and sanctions in its patent dispute with Eon-Net LP and counsel Zimmerman & Levi, LLP.
• Affirmed a New York district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement of Duramed Pharmaceuticals’ patent under the doctrine of equivalents.
• Affirmed in part a Texas district court’s patent infringement finding against Becton, Dickinson in its suit against Retractable Technologies and Thomas J. Shaw.
• Affirmed a New Mexico district court’s decision against Leviton Manufacturing Co., finding that it relinquished its patent rights in its settlement agreement with plaintiffs General Protecht Group et al.
• Affirmed a California district court’s non-infringement decision favouring American Honda Motor Co. in its patent litigation with American Calcar.
• Affirmed a New Jersey district court’s summary judgment invalidating Tyco Healthcare Group’s patent, in its suit against Mutual Pharmaceutical Company et ano.
• Affirmed a Delaware district court’s finding that Boston Scientific patents are invalid in its suit against Johnson & Johnson, Cordis and Wyeth.
254 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2012
• Affirmed a Delaware district court’s summary judgment for Hynix Semiconductor in its suit against Rambus, while vacating a spoliation finding.
• Affirmed a California district court’s summary judgment of patent invalidity against Billups-Rothenberg in its suit with Associated Regional and University Pathologists et al.
• Affirmed a California district court’s dismissal of a false marking qui tam action by Juniper Networks against Shipley.
• Affirmed a Tennessee district court’s dismissal of Radio Systems’ suit against Accession for lack of jurisdiction.
• Affirmed an Illinois district court’s finding that Northgate Technologies et al infringed a Lexion Medical patent.
• Affirmed a Texas district court’s finding of contempt and sanctions against Echostar et al and vacated in part other contempt findings in its suit against Tivo.
• Affirmed in part a Virginia district court’s summary judgment invalidating claims in a Rembrandt Data Technologies patent in its suit against AOL et al.
• Affirmed a Virginia district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement in American Piledriving Equipment v Geoquip, and reversed the claim construction that a California district court used for the same patent.
• Affirmed a Delaware district court’s denial of Saint-Gobain’s motion for a new trial, but vacated the damages award to Siemens Medical Solutions USA.
• Affirmed in part a California district court’s non-infringement and invalidity findings in Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing LP v American Airlines et al.
• Affirmed a California district court’s summary judgment of patent invalidity in Tokai v Easton Enterprises.
Paul J. Sutton is a founding partner of Sutton Magidoff LLP. He can be contacted at:
paul@suttonmagidoff.com
Paul J. Sutton, with a juris doctor degree, an ‘AV Preeminent’ highest Martindale-Hubbell rating, and four decades of intellectual property law counselling and litigation strategy experience, was honoured by Super Lawyers magazine, and is listed in Strathmore’s Who’s Who. He is adjunct professor of law at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. Prior to practising law, Sutton was a member of the team that designed the Apollo Saturn third-stage booster rocket structure, which carried the first US astronauts to the Moon.
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212 |
Page 213 |
Page 214 |
Page 215 |
Page 216 |
Page 217 |
Page 218 |
Page 219 |
Page 220 |
Page 221 |
Page 222 |
Page 223 |
Page 224 |
Page 225 |
Page 226 |
Page 227 |
Page 228 |
Page 229 |
Page 230 |
Page 231 |
Page 232 |
Page 233 |
Page 234 |
Page 235 |
Page 236 |
Page 237 |
Page 238 |
Page 239 |
Page 240 |
Page 241 |
Page 242 |
Page 243 |
Page 244 |
Page 245 |
Page 246 |
Page 247 |
Page 248 |
Page 249 |
Page 250 |
Page 251 |
Page 252 |
Page 253 |
Page 254 |
Page 255 |
Page 256 |
Page 257 |
Page 258 |
Page 259 |
Page 260 |
Page 261 |
Page 262 |
Page 263 |
Page 264 |
Page 265 |
Page 266 |
Page 267 |
Page 268 |
Page 269 |
Page 270 |
Page 271