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.
|
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc.
Preliminary injunction vacated for erroneous claim construction
|
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
|
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.
|
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
|
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."
|
Varco, L.P. v. Pason Systems USA Corp.
The trial courts claim construction was unduly narrow
|
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.
|