Sud-Chemie, Inc. v. Multisorb Technologies, Inc. (No. 08-1247) (Rader, Friedman, Bryson)
(Bryson) Reversing and remanding summary judgment of obviousness of claims directed to desiccant container.
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis, Corp. (No. 2008-1073) (Lourie, Rader, Prost)
January 15, 2009 1:59 PM
(Lourie) Reversing jury verdict and judgment of infringement because patent was invalid as obvious. "We are free to override the jury's legal conclusion on the ultimate question of obviousness without deference." All of the limitations of the asserted claim were found in two separate embodiments pictured side by side in a prior art patent, and it would have been obvious to combine the two embodiments. "Combining two embodiments disclosed adjacent each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness."
In Re Comiskey [revised] (No. 06-1286) (Michel, Dyk, Prost)
January 13, 2009 3:18 PM
(Dyk) Claims directed to a method and system for mandatory arbitration not patentable for failure to claim patentable subject matter.
In Re Comiskey (No. 2006-1286) (Michel, Dyk, Prost)
January 13, 2009 2:12 PM
(Dyk) Holding method claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101 and remanding system claims “to the PTO to determine in the first instance whether §101 is satisfied.” The panel’s original opinion had held that the system claims were directed to patentable subject matter. Pursuant to the en banc order, the panel revised that portion of the opinion.
In Re Comiskey [order] (No. 2006-1286) (en banc)
January 13, 2009 2:03 PM
(Per Curiam) Order vacating judgment of the Court entered on September 20, 2007, authorizing panel to revise its opinion, and returning the case to the panel. Moore, Newman and Rader dissent.