Monthly Archives: March 2014

Shire Development, LLC et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2013-1409 RADER, PROST, HUGHES March 28, 2014 Brief Summary: DC construction of the terms “inner lipophilic matrix” and “outer hydrophilic matrix” reversed as inconsistent with “[t]he prosecution history, the structure of the claim itself, the ordinary meaning of … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Stone Lion Capital Partners v. Lion Capital LLP

Docket No. 2013-1353 RADER, REYNA, WALLACH March 26, 2014 Brief summary: TTAB decision refusing to register “STONE LION CAPITAL” due to a likelihood of confusion with Lion Capital LLP’s previously registered marks “LION CAPITAL” and “LION” affirmed. Summary: Stone Lion … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1239 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH March 25, 2014 Brief Summary: Claim and issue preclusion found inapplicable but the Kessler Doctrine applies because “all of the claims were or could have been asserted against Elekta” and the devices are “essentially … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Preclusion, Collateral estoppel, Issue Preclusion | Leave a comment

Vederi, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1057, -1296 RADER, DYK, TARANTO March 14, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of non-infringment to Google vacated and remanded as it was based on erroneous claim construction. Summary: Vederi appealed USDC CD CA grant of SJ … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement | Leave a comment

Alcon Research Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1340, -1341 NEWMAN, LOURIE, BRYSON March 18, 2014 Brief Summary: DC holding of no infringement affirmed; findings of no enablement and written description reversed. Its denial of Barr’s request for JMOL was also affirmed. Summary: Alcon appealed final … Continue reading

Posted in Enablement, Generics / ANDA, Infringement, Written description | Leave a comment

E2 Interactive, Inc. and Interactive Communications, Inc. (“InComm”) v. Blackhawk Network, Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1151 DYK, MOORE, WALLACH March 12, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC judgment of infringement finding claims did not require “terminal identifier” to make authorization determination reversed where patentee “unambiguously argued that” it is required during prosecution. Summary: Blackhawk … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment

Therasense, Inc. et al. (Abbott) v. Becton, Dickinson and Company and Nova Biomedical Corporation, and Bayer Healthcare LLC

Docket No. 2012-1504 RADER, NEWMAN, DYK (dissent-in-part) March 12, 2014 Brief Summary: Becton / Nova’s request for additional fees 35 U.S.C. § 285 denied because the “pre-existing inequitable conduct ruling was ‘not upheld on appeal’ as required by the…fee order” … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

Danisco US Inc. v. Novozymes A/S and Novozymes North America, Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1214 LOURIE, PROST, O’MALLEY March 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC dismissal of DJ action for lack of “justiciable Article III case or controversy” reversed and remanded because “Novozymes’s behavior” made “Danisco, quite reasonably,…more than a ‘nervous…possible infringer’, even … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes | Leave a comment

Promega Corporation v. Applied Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies Corporation, and California Institute of Technology

Docket No. 2013-1454 PROST, MAYER, CHEN March 10, 2014 Non-precedential (Rule 36 judgment) Brief Summary: DC determination of invalidity affirmed (anticipated as earlier patent not filed “by another”; no 103(c) safe harbor as no evidence of “team research” presented). Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Assignment / Ownership, Double Patenting, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Frans Nooren Afdichtingssystemen B.V. (“Nooren”) and Stopaq B.V. v. Sopaq Amcorr Inc.

Docket No. 2013-1200 RADER, TARANTO, CHEN February 21, 2014 Brief Summary: DC construction that “‘a filler’ can contrain only ‘one material’” vacated as neither the specification nor the prosecution history excluded mixtures (“too many questions of apparent relevance to identifying … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Claim Differentiation | Leave a comment