Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al. v. Miracle Optics, Inc, et al.
Fixed termination date and reversionary clause makes an agreement to transfer patent rights a license rather than an assignment of "all substantial rights."
|
Brand v. Miller
In a contested proceeding, it is improper for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences to rely on its own expertise in interpreting the record.
|
Conoco Inc. v. Energy & Environmental Int’l, L.C.
Infringement of "consisting of" claim not avoided by addition of element unrelated to the claimed invention.
|
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. and ADI Torkiya v. Swisa, Inc. and Dror Swisa
"Point of Novelty" in design patents inquires whether the combination of design elements in the patented design are a "non-trivial advance over the prior art."
|
Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
Federal Circuit Reverses Finding of Claim Indefiniteness
|
Falkner v. Inglis
The court affirmed the judgment of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that Inglis was the senior party in an interference dispute.
|
Optivus Technology, Inc. v. Ion Beam Applications, S.A.
This case involves issues of unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, patent invalidity, and amending a pleading to add an inequitable conduct defense. This summary will focus on the patent invalidity and pleading amendment issues. The plaintiffs are the exclusive licensee and assignee of patents for the use of proton beams in cancer therapy. The district court granted the defendant summary judgment and held that both patents were invalid as obvious and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
|