Monthly Archives: November 2011

Stephen E. Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP et al.

Posted on November 29, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1012 LOURIE, GAJARSA, O’MALLEY November 18, 2011 Non-precedential Brief summary: As a general rule, an inventor will be a person of at least ordinary skill in the relevant art. A finding regarding this point may not be required … Continue reading →

Posted in Expert Testimony, Malpractice | Leave a comment

O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd.

Posted on November 22, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1054 RADER, LOURIE, PROST November 18, 2011 Non-precedential Subject matter: inducement to infringe, permanent injunction Brief summary: Inducement to infringe may be proven (preponderance of the evidence) with circumstantial evidence. In a permanent injunction analysis, the grant of … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement, Injunction | Leave a comment

Michael S. Powell v. Home Depot, Inc.

Posted on November 16, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2010-1049, -1416 LINN, DYK (C/D), PROST November 14, 2011 Subject matter: claim construction, inequitable conduct, willful infringement Summary: Home Depot (HD) appealed DC decision that relating to Powell’s radial arm saw patent (claim construction, inequitable conduct, literal / … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inequitable Conduct, Infringement | Leave a comment

Typhoon, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al.

Posted on November 11, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 09-1589 RADER, NEWMAN, PROST November 4, 2011 Subject matter: claim construction, indefiniteness Brief summary: Several claim terms in computer-related apparatus claims were defined to require that those structures be programmed to have a function. To be its own … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Stephen P. Troy, Jr. and Troy Industries, Inc.

Posted on November 3, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2011-1002, -1003 PROST, MAYER, O’MALLEY October 6, 2011 Brief summary: Atlantic unsuccessfully argued that its patent described the alleged infringing device, but successfully argued in the alternative that the design was its trade secret. Summary: Atlantic appealed the … Continue reading →

Posted in Trade Secret, Written description | Leave a comment

TianRui Group Company Ltd. et al. v. ITC, et al.

Posted on November 1, 2011 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2010-1395 BRYSON, SCHALL, MOORE October 11, 2011 Subject matter: trade secret, ITC jurisdiction Brief summary: ITC may investigate foreign activities to prove an element of a misappropriation claim under 19 U.S.C. § 1337. TianRui appealed ITC determination that … Continue reading →

Posted in International Trade Commission, Trade Secret | Tagged | Leave a comment