Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp.
District court did not err in failing to apply collateral estoppel regarding the reasonable royalty of two different accused products, and the judgment was affirmed. The jury's finding of willfulness was supported by substantial evidence.
|
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."
|
Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Co.
Intrinsic record and dictionary definitions support the district court finding of no literal infringement, but the '514 Patent was not anticipated by the prior art nor was it unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
|
Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc.
A breach of contract suit over the terms of a patent licensing agreement was properly dismissed from U.S. courts on forum non conveniens grounds, when the inventor and the licensee were foreign, and the agreement had been negotiated under German law.
|
Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.
Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful, indirect infringement of the patentee's gas fireplace configuration; defendant was reckless in obtaining an incompetent oral opinion of noninfringement.
|
Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States
Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the Court of International Trade that the steps used to refurbish disposable cameras constituted permissible repair and not impermissible reconstruction.
|
M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co.
A failure to disclose a prior art device to the PTO, where the only evidence of intent is lack of a good faith explanation for the nondisclosure, cannot constitute clear and convincing evidence sufficient to support a determination of culpable intent.
|
Microchip Tech. Inc. v. Chamberlain Group, Inc.
On appeal, a declaratory judgment of invalidity and non-infringement was vacated due to lack of case or controversy.
|
Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp., et al. v. Shell Oil Company, et al.
Federal Circuit refuses to reconsider decision that Section 271(f) applies to process inventions
|
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.
Finding the record too sparse for a decision, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for a detailed analysis of claim construction in light of the Federal Circuit’s guidance.
|