Monthly Archives: July 2014

Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

Posted on July 30, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1357 CHEN, CLEVENGER, HUGHES July 17, 2014 Brief Summary: Appeal of DC decision on injunction dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (DC did not modify injunction but “simply interpreted or clarified” it. Summary: Arlington and Bridgeport entered into a … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Injunction | Leave a comment

StonCor Group, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc.

Posted on July 29, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1448 TARANTO, HUGHES July 16, 2014 Brief summary: Board conclusion of no likelihood of confusion of STONSHIELD with ARMORSTONE affirmed. Board error regarding pronounciation found harmless. Summary: StonCor appealed Board dismissal of its opposition to the mark “ARMORSTONE”, … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

In re Rajen M. Patel et al.

Posted on July 28, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1301 O’MALLEY, HUGHES July 16, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Proximity of claimed ranges to prior art without any actual overlap not enough to establish obviousness. Unexpected results must be shown over the entire claimed range. Summary: The applicants … Continue reading →

Posted in Obviousness | Leave a comment

Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed, LLC

Posted on July 23, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1451 PROST, TARANTO, CHEN July 14, 2014 Brief Summary: Post-trial motion for JMOL (FRCP 50(b)) denied because sufficiency of evidence must be challenged before submission to the jury under FRCP 50(a). Motion for new trial granted, however, as … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Appeal, Unjust enrichment | Leave a comment

Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. v. Apple Inc. and Motorola Mobility, LLC

Posted on July 22, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1496 PROST, O’MALLEY July 14, 2014 Brief Summary: GBT’s submission of “stipulated” claim construction order in IDS constituted “clear and unmistakable” limitation of claim scope. Grant of SJ of non-infringement to Apple affirmed. Summary: Golden Bridge (GBT) appealed … Continue reading →

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

H-W Technology, L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.

Posted on July 21, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1054, -1055 PROST, O’MALLEY July 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision not to consider certificate of correction was correct because error was not evident “from the face of the patent” and “error in the prosecution history alone is … Continue reading →

Posted in Certificate of Correction, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Stephen P. Troy, Jr. v. Samson Manufacturing Corporation

Posted on July 16, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1565 PROST, BRYSON, MOORE July 11, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision regarding § 146 interferences vacated and remaned because US Supreme Court Hyatt decision “permits new evidence to be admitted without regard to whether the issue was raised … Continue reading →

Posted in Interference | Leave a comment

Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, et al.

Posted on July 15, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1600 through -1618 MOORE, REYNA, HUGHES July 11, 2014 Brief Summary: Claims relating to digital image processing system found ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for encompassing only “information in its non-tangible form” and “a process of organizing … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

VirtualAgility Inc v. Salesforce.com et al.

Posted on July 11, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2014-1232 NEWMAN (d), MOORE, CHEN July 10, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision denying a motion to stay litigation until post-grant review is complete is reversed. Summary: Salesforce.com et al. appealed from DC order denying their motion to stay … Continue reading →

Posted in America Invents Act, Procedural Issues | Leave a comment

X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. International Trade Commission and Intel Corp. et al.

Posted on July 8, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2013-1340 MOORE, REYNA, WALLACH July 7, 2014 Brief Summary: ITC claim construction affirmed based on disavowel in specification that disputed limitation is “an essential element”. Summary: X2Y appealed ITC final determination that Intel did not violate 19 USC … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, International Trade Commission | Leave a comment