Federal Circuit Patent Updates - November 2005

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - November 2005

Publication

View previous month...

Pfizer, Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al. (No. 05-1531)(Newman, Rader, Prost)

November 22, 2005 2:41 PM

(Prost) Affirming grant of a preliminary injunction against infringement. "[B]efore unclaimed subject matter is deemed to have been dedicated to the public, that unclaimed subject matter must have been identified by the patentee as an alternative to a claim limitation." Irreparable harm was found even though the patentee had granted "a narrow, exclusive license" to the patent in another field. "[A]n alleged infringer's loss of market share and customer relationships, without more, does not rise to the level necessary to overcome the loss of exclusivity experienced by a patent owner due to infringing conduct." The public interest in "selling a lower priced product does not justify infringing a patent."

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (No. 05-1009)(Clevenger, Rader, Schall)

November 21, 2005 2:39 PM

(Clevenger) Affirming summary judgment of invalidity but reversing award of attorney fees where the motion for fees was not timely filed. On an issue of first impression, a patent claim that "recites both a system and a method for using that system" is indefinite and invalid.

Microstrategy, Inc. v. Business Objects, S.A., et al. (No. 04-1572)(Newman, Archer, Rader)

November 17, 2005 2:37 PM

(Rader) Affirming summary judgment of noninfringement and affirming in part and reversing in part dismissal of state law claims.

Symbol Tech. v. Lemelson Med., Ed. & Res. Found. (No. 04-1451)(en banc)

November 16, 2005 2:29 PM

Precedential Order extending the holding of invalidity of certain of Lemelson's patents to all 14 asserted patents.

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Products, Inc. (No. 05-1026) (Clevenger, Gajarsa, Newman)

November 7, 2005 2:24 PM

(Clevenger) Reversing summary judgment of non-infringement of patent directed to car seat because the "district court . . . invaded the province of the finder of fact, here a jury requested by Dorel, in deciding the infringement question." The claim required car seat to have two separate parts, a "seat" and a "base." The factual issue to be decided was whether the "top structure is capable of functioning as a "seat" upon being removed from the bottom structure."

Notice

We appreciate your interest in WilmerHale. While we are pleased to have you contact us, please keep in mind that merely contacting WilmerHale does not create an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship will not arise until the Firm agrees in writing to represent you in connection with a particular matter. Importantly, unless and until this has occurred, you should not provide us with any confidential information, and we have no duty to keep confidential any information that we may receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.