Honeywell Int’l v. ITT Indus., Inc.
The Court upheld a summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of Defendant ITT because the district court properly construed the main claim term at issue.
|
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...
|
Kemin Foods, L.C. v. Pigmentos Vegetales Del Centro S.A. DE C.V.
The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s holdings that the ’714 patent was nonobvious, that both the ’714 patent and the ’564 patent were enforceable, and the awarding of costs to plaintiff Kemin. The Federal Circuit further upheld the district court’s judgment that the asserted claims of the ’714 patent were not infringed. But The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s pretrial order striking Kemin’s supplemental expert report regarding infringement of claim 5 of the
|
Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, et al.
The Federal Circuit found flaws in the district court’s interpretation of the limitation “distributing” found in claim 9 of the ’982 patent, which called into question two stipulated judgments of noninfringement. The Court construed the limitation, despite the fact that there were claims of invalidity and unenforceability pending before district court and that there was a lack of discussion of the accused products on the record. The case was vacated and remanded to the district court for furth
|
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc.
When there is an express disclaimer, no license can be implied.
The exhaustion doctrine does not apply to an expressly conditional sale or license. "Substantially all" may not vitiate a claim limitation requiring "all."
|
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs
The Federal Circuit upholds Monsanto's Roundup Ready patents on appeal
|
Planet Bingo v. GameTech Int'l
Federal Circuit Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling for Bingo Competitor
|
Stern v. Trustees of Columbia University, et al
Purported inventor failed to present sufficient evidence to be added as co-inventor of patent-at-issue
|