Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
Expert affidavit of equivalence of a means-plus-function claim element raised a fact question to defeat summary judgment.
|
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."
|
Bicon, Inc. et al. v. The Straumann Co. et al.
Affirmed lower court's holding that the preamble of the claim recited essential, limiting elements of the invention pertaining to the structure of a device used with the plastic cuff, and did not merely state the purpose or intended use of the invention.
|
Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.
Summary judgment of non-infringement affirmed
|
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.
|
Kao Corp. v. Unilever United States, Inc.
Patent not invalid for indefiniteness where step is so straightforward that a detailed description in the specification of that step is not required; evidence used to show prima facie case of obviousness is not enough by itself to overcome rebuttal of obviousness claim; failure to disclose full test results did not constitute inequitable conduct where there was no intent to deceive; no literal infringement of claim where claim construction excludes an element of the claim that is relied on to...
|
Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.
Substantial evidence supported the district court's finding of infringement, validity, willful infringement, and no inequitable conduct.
|
Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L.
Testimony supporting priority-of-invention claim must be adequately corroborated.
|
Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Inequitable conduct findings require a balancing of the materiality of the misrepresentation against Patentee's intent to deceive.
|
Schoenhaus v. Genesco, Inc.
Federal circuit upholds lower court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringment in part because Plaintiff's claim construction rendered dependent claim "nonsensical."
|