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.
|
Digital Control Inc., et al. v. The Charles Machine Works (also known as DitchWitch)
The district court found that an inventor had intended to deceive the PTO through the submission of a misleading declaration and by failing to cite certain prior art. The patents were therefore found unenforceable for inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's findings as to the materiality of an inventor's misstatements to the PTO, but reversed as to the materiality of the undisclosed, potentially "cumulative" prior art. The case was remanded for further proceedin
|
Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co. et. al
The Federal Circuit reversed the district court's denial of JMOL that claims were invalid as obvious.
|
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.
|
In re Johnston
Federal Circuit Upholds determination of non-patentabiliy by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
|
Intel Corp. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Microsoft v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Patent Licensing Negotiations Can Fall Under Commercial Activity Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
|
Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int'l, LLC
A combination in a design patent of many non-novel "points of novelty" itself is not an additional "point of novelty"
|
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."
|
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."
|
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
|