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

Unless you are an existing client, before communicating with WilmerHale by e-mail (or otherwise), please read the Disclaimer referenced by this link. (The Disclaimer is also accessible from the opening of this website). As noted therein, until you have received from us a written statement that we represent you in a particular manner (an "engagement letter") you should not send to us any confidential information about any such matter. After we have undertaken representation of you concerning a matter, you will be our client, and we may thereafter exchange confidential information freely.

Thank you for your interest in WilmerHale.