St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc. (2012-1452, 9/11/13) (Lourie, Plager, Wallach)
Plager, J. Reversing safe harbor ruling and finding claims invalid due to double patenting. The § 121 safe harbor did not apply because consonance was not maintained and the asserted patent was directed to the same invention as an earlier issued, related, patent. Also affirming ruling that other patents, related to sealing a vascular puncture, were not obvious. Lourie, J. concurred.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
|
High Point Design LLC v. Buyer's Direct, Inc. (2012-1455, 9/11/13) (O'Malley, Schall, Wallach) September 11, 2013 12:03
PM
Schall, J. Reversing summary judgment of invalidity of design patent related to a slipper, vacating dismissal of trade dress claims and remanding. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Wawrzynski v. H.J. Heinz Company. (2012-1624, 9/6//13) (Newman, Plager, Prost) September 6, 2013 4:12
PM
Plager, J. Transferring to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit due to lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. |
|
Accenture Global Services v. Guidewire Software, Inc.. (2011-1486, 9/5/13) (Rader, Lourie, Reyna) September 5, 2013 3:36
PM
Lourie, J. Affirming summary judgment of invalidity under 35 USC §101 of claims related to a system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization. "While it is not always true that related system claims are patent-ineligible because similar method claims are, when they exist in the same patent and are shown to contain insignificant meaningful limitations, the conclusion of ineligibility is inescapable." Rader, J. dissented. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Soverian Software v. NewEgg (2011-1009, 9/4/13) (Newman, Prost, Reyna) September 4, 2013 10:12
AM
Per Curiam. Granting rehearing and finding that dependent claim,
not separately argued to the district court or on appeal, was
invalid as was the independent claim from which it depends. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Bayer CropScience AG v. Dow Agrosciences LLC (2013-1581, 9/3/13) (Prost, Bryson, Taranto) September 3, 2013 7:18
PM
Taranto, J. Affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of patent related to a genetically modified plant. The asserted claims required a "monooxygenase" enzyme. The accused products used a "dioxygenase" enzyme instead. When the patent application was filed, the applicant believed its enzyme to be "monooxygenase." Years before patent was granted, the applicant learned that its enzyme was actually "dioxygenase" instead, but the applicant did not remove the "monooxygenase" limitation from the claims. Patent owner's arguments that the "monooxygenase" limitation should be construed broadly were not persuasive. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.