Monthly Archives: March 2013

Chandler Dawson v. Chandler Dawson and Lyle Bowman

Docket Nos. 2012-1214,-1215,-1216,-1217 REYNA, BRYSON, WALLACH March 25, 2013 Brief summary: UCSF was not able to show the “formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention” (Hybritech, FC 1986) … Continue reading

Posted in Inventorship, Preamble | Leave a comment

Jack L. Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co.

Docket No. 2012-1185 NEWMAN, CLEVENGER, MOORE March 15, 2013 Brief summary: AIA requires “a competitive injury” and monetary damages are available where the marking was done “with the intent…of deceiving the public”. Summary: Mr. Frolow (“Frolow”) appealed from USDC NJ … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement, Licensing, Patent Marking | Leave a comment

Aristocrat Tech. Australia PTY Ltd., et al. v. International Game Technology and IGT

Docket No. 2010-1426 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, LINN March 13, 2013 Brief summary: For direct infringement, “the accused party must commit all of the acts necessary to infringe the patent, either personally or vicariously”. For indirect infringement, a party must “knowingly induce[] … Continue reading

Posted in Infringement | Leave a comment

SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2011-1191 (etc.) RADER, LOURIE, DANIEL March 13, 2013 Brief summary: DC correctly granted SJ on contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) (e.g., overseas manufacture and sales with knowledge the products would be imported into the … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction, Contributory Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re Jeffrey Hubbell, et al.

Docket No. 2011-1547 (Serial No. 10/650,509) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, WALLACH March 7, 2013 Brief summary: Board decision regarding double-patenting rejection of Hubbell’s claims was affirmed. Summary: Hubbell’s claims (Ser. No. 10/650,509) related to peptide-protein matrices for tissue repair and regeneration were … Continue reading

Posted in Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Eurand, Inc. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2012-1280 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, REYNA February 1, 2013 Non-precedential Summary: Impax appealed USDC DE decision adding it to May, 2011 preliminary injunction related to generic versions of Cephalon’s AMRIX® (for more information on action: In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended … Continue reading

Posted in Generics / ANDA | Leave a comment