John M. Wang | December 6, 2013
Decided November 15, 2013
Before Dyk (Circuit Judge), Bryson (Circuit Judge) and Reyna (Circuit Judge). Opinion by Reyna.
Keywords: collateral estoppel, obviousness, inequitable conduct, reexamination, and rule of reason.
OWW initiated a suit against Alps for patent infringement. After a long legal battle including two ex parte reexaminations, two District Court proceedings, and two CAFC appeals, OWW lost two patents and was charged with inequitable conduct.
OWW is the owner of US Patent No. 5,830,237 (the ‘237 patent), entitled “Gel and Cushioning Devices,” filed on March 5, 1996. The ‘237 patent disclosed cushioning devices designed to cover the residual stumps of amputated limbs, acting as a shape-conforming buffer, as illustrated below, to make the use of attached prostheses more comfortable. The primary invention was a cushion liner comprising a fabric covering in the shape of a tube sock coated on only one side with mineral oil-based polymeric gels.
On December 27, 2004, OWW filed its complaint against Alps for infringement of the ‘237 patent. After the District Court issued its Claim Construction order in the proceedings, Alps filed its first request for an ex parte reexamination of the ‘237 patent. The District Court stayed the litigation for the duration of reexamination proceedings, pending resolution of the validity of the disputed patent.
Under pre-AIA law, conception of a DNA segment is established by possession and appreciation, not completely accurate sequence knowledge
Bernadette McGann | November 20, 2013
Sanofi-Aventis v Pfizer, Inc.
November 5, 2013
Before Newman (Circuit Judge), Lourie (Circuit Judge) and Davis (District Judge). Opinion by Newman.
A patent is awarded to the first party to conceive and reduce to practice the invention. When the invention is directed towards a DNA segment, conception requires possession and appreciation of the DNA segment that is claimed. A completely correct sequence of the DNA segment is not the standard for establishing conception and reduction to practice.
Sung-Hoon Kim | November 6, 2013
Integrated Technology Corporation v. Rudolph Technologies, Inc.
November 4, 2013
Moore (author), Rader, and Clevenger
The CAFC reversed the denial of Rudolph’s motion for JMOL that its accused no-touch products do not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. The CAFC found that prosecution history estoppel (preventing ITC from recapturing through the doctrine of equivalents the subject matter that ITC surrendered during prosecution) presumptively applies, and that ITC failed to rebut the presumption because it failed to establish one of three exceptions by a preponderance of the evidence.
Sadao Kinashi | November 4, 2013
nCube Corp. v. SeaChange Int’l Inc. (nCube Corp. is now ARRIS Group)
October 10, 2013
JUDGES: Rader, Prost and Taranto; OPINION BY: Prost
In the infringement suit, SeaChange was found to have infringed of ARRIS’s patent. In the infringing system, ClientID was updated in the connection service table. SeaChange soon began to sell modified products in which SessionID was updated in the connection service table. SeaChange was enjoined from making, using, selling any devices “not more than colorably different” from the infringing product.
ARRIS filed a motion to hold SeaChanger in contempt of a permanent injunction order. The district court found that ARRIS failed to meet its burden of showing contempt by clear and convincing evidence and declined to hold the infringer in contempt and ARRIS appealed.
CAFC affirmed denial of the contempt motion. CAFC found that it was more than a colorable difference from the patented product that the infringer modified its product such that ClientID was no longer updated in the connection service table. CAFC ruled that the fact that SessionID continued to be updated in the connection service table with similar information, which had not been challenged at trial as infringing the patent, did not provide a basis for finding contempt.
特許侵害訴訟でSeaChangeはARRISの特許を侵害すると判断された。侵害製品は接続サービス表のClientIDをアップデートするものだった。ARRISはすぐに改良製品を販売し始め、それは接続サービス表のSessionIDをアップデートするものだった。SeaChangeは侵害製品から「colorably different」を超えない製品の製造・使用･販売の差止を命じられた。ARRISは侵害者が永久差止命令を侮辱するものとする決定を求める申立をした。地裁は、ARRISが、明白で説得力のある立証をしていないとして、申立を棄却した。CAFCは、地裁の決定を維持した。CAFCは、SeaChangeが、接続サービス表のClientIDが更新されないよう改変したことは、colorable differenceを超えるものであると判断した。そして、CAFCは、公判で侵害を立証するために使用されなかったSessionIDが引続き更新されていることは、法廷侮辱の認定の根拠にならないとした。Next Page »