This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
US PATENTS


2012 FEDERAL CIRCUIT PATENT RULINGS


Paul J. Sutton Sutton Magidoff LLP


Like 2011, 2012 was an extremely busy year for the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the US ‘Patent court’). T e court heard dozens of patent-related appeals from lower US district courts and the US Patent and Trademark Offi ce (USPTO), with far-reaching consequences for inventors, patent practitioners, and various industries.


In many of the decisions in these appeals, the court overturned or vacated, in whole or in part, the decision of the district court or USPTO, granting a win to the appellant. T e following, arranged in chronological order, summarises representative Federal Circuit precedential decisions rendered over the past year, which have been grouped into appellant ‘victories’ and ‘losses’. T e Federal Circuit affi rmed more district court decisions than it reversed. T e reader is encouraged to visit the Federal Circuit Website http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov to view the decisions’ language and the court’s reasoning.


Appellant victories


• Affi rmed a Texas district court decision granting summary judgment against defendant re antitrust claim in IGT v Alliance Gaming Corp.


• Affi rmed a Texas district court decision, fi nding non-infringement for Intel in Intel v Negotiated Data Solutions.


• Affi rmed a Delaware district court decision, fi nding infringement against all defendants in Astrazeneca v Aurobindo.


• Affi rmed a Virginia district court decision, transferring the case to the 4th


Circuit, in Corr v Metro Washington Airports.


• Affi rmed a Texas district court decision remanding the case re sanctions, in Raylon v Compus Data Innovations.


• Affi rmed a district court decision in Virginia, affi rming fi nding of non-infringement in Pregis Corp v Kappos.


• Affi rmed a district court decision in Illinois, barring Cummins for res judicata, in Cummins v Tas Distributing.


• Affi rmed a Virginia district court decision, affi rming patent invalidity, in T e Fox Group v Cree.


112 World Intellectual Property Review e-Digest 2013


• Affi rmed a Minnesota district court decision, dismissing the complaint, in Superior Industries v T or Global Enterprises.


• Affi rmed an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision, fi nding no violations in Norgren v ITC.


• Affi rmed a Delaware district court decision, affi rming validity and infringement in Edwards Lifesciences v Corevalve.


• Affi rmed a Florida district court decision, affi rming invalidity, in Voter Verifi ed v Premier Election Solutions.


• Affi rmed a Maryland district court decision, affi rming non- infringement in Technology Patents v T-Mobile (UK).


• Affi rmed a Delaware district court infringement decision in Energy Transportation Group v William Dement Holding.


• Affi rmed a Wisconsin district court decision vacating summary judgment of non-infringement in Sandisk Corp v Kingston Technology.


• Affi rmed a Texas district court decision of infringement and validity in Pozen v Par Pharmaceutical.


• Affi rmed a Pennsylvania district court decision dismissing a declaratory judgment action in Matthews International v Biosafe Engineering.


• Affi rmed a district court fi nding of obviousness in Outside the Box Innovations v Travel Caddy.


• Affi rmed a Utah district court decision of validity and wilful infringement in K-Tec v Vita-Mix.


• Affi rmed a Texas district court decision of non-infringement in Mirror Worlds v Apple.


• Affi rmed a Florida district court decision of patent invalidity in Woods v Deangelo Marine.


• Affi rmed a Delaware district court decision of patent validity in Eli Lilly v Teva Parenteral Medicines.


• Affi rmed a Wyoming district court decision of dismissal in AFTG-TG v Nuvoton Technology.


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