Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.
Testimony from experts in patent case can provide evidence of motivation to modify prior art in order to prove obviousness.
|
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.
|
Exigent Technology, Inc. v. Atrana Solutions, Inc.
Summary judgment of non-infringement affirmed
|
Flex-Rest, LLC v. Steelcase, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit, the district court correctly refused to instruct the jury on suppression of prior art, when defendant’s reduction to practice was followed, six months later, by commercialization and the filing of a patent application.
The claim term “sidewalls” had been correctly construed to cover structures that projected or extended upward from a tray, because the claim language and specification made clear that the sidewalls were part of the support for a computer keyboa
|
Glenayre Electronics, Inc. v. Jackson
Remittitur acceptance prevents additional recovery for indirect infringement counterclaims against customers
|
Inpro II Licensing v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
District court correctly limited a claim term based on the specification's description of the invention and prosecution history.
|
Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc.
Substantial evidence supported the district court's finding of infringement, validity, willful infringement, and no inequitable conduct.
|
Louisville Bedding Co. v. Pillowtex Corp.
Patent owner was not entitled to change in court judgment after defendant went out of business.
|
Primos, Inc. v. Hunter’s Specialties, Inc.
A claim term in a patent infringement suit had been properly construed, so as not to render another claim term superfluous, or to exclude a preferred embodiment. The Doctrine of Equivalents had been properly applied, even though the disputed term had been amended during prosecution. Because the amendments were tangential to the dispute, prosecution history estoppel was inapplicable. Moreover, the court had not vitiated the claim term “plate” by finding that its equivalent in the infringing pr
|
Venture Industries Corp. v. Autoliv ASP, Inc.
District court erred in failing to address whether financial statements containing false information used at trial constituted fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct.
|