Monsanto Company v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours (No. 2013-1349, 5/9/14) (Lourie, Reyna, Wallach)
May 9, 2014 3:30 PM
Lourie, J. Affirming district court sanction award striking
defenses and awarding attorney fees.
WilmerHale represented the plaintiff-appellee Monsanto.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Intouch Technologies, Inc. v. VGO Communications, Inc. (No. 2013-1204, 5/9/14) (Rader, Lourie, O'Malley)
May 9, 2014 12:55 PM
O'Malley, J. Affirming judgment of non-infringement of
asserted patents and denial of new trial, while reversing findings
of obviousness of two patents for lack of substantial
evidence.
WilmerHale represented the defendant-appellee VGO.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
|
General Electric Company v. Wilkins. (No. 2013-1170, 5/8/14) (Lorie, Taranto, Chen) May 8, 2014 6:18 PM Lourie, J. Affirming declaratory judgment rejecting inventorship
claim based on credibility findings of district court judge.
"[W]ithout credible testimony from Wilkins, there was nothing
to corroborate." A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
In re: Packard (No. 2013-1204, 5/6/14) (O'Malley, Plager, Taranto) May 6, 2014 11:10 AM Per Curium. Affirming rejection of claims as indefinite.
"Insolubly ambiguous" standard inapplicable to PTO
proceedings. "[w]hen the USPTO has initially issued a
well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a
claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear
in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter
the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO
can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory
requirements of § 112(b). Plager, J. wrote a concurring
opinion. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
In re: Roslin Institute (Edinburgh) (No. 2013-1407, 5/8/14) (Dyk, Moore, Wallach) May 8, 2014 12:15 PM Dyk, J. Affirming Board decision rejecting application for
claims directed to "a live-born clone of a pre-existing,
nonembryonic, A full version of the text is available in PDF form. |
|
Microsoft Corporation v. Datatern, Inc. (No. 2013-1184, -1185, 5/5/14) (Prost, Moore, (Rader recused after argument)) May 5, 2014 9:30 AM Moore, J. Affirming in part and reversing in part existence of declaratory judgment jurisdiction and summary judgment rulings of infringement. Declaratory judgment jurisdiction did not exist for manufacturer based solely on customer's request for indemnification and when infringement actions in other forums were already pending against customers. Also holding that scope of declaratory judgment with respect to patents and products should be governed by complaint, not by infringement contentions. A full version of the text is available in PDF form. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. |