SEB S.A. v. Mongomery Ward & Co., Inc.

In August of 1999, Plaintiff SEB S.A. (“SEB”) sued defendants Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. (“Montgomery Ward”), Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. (“Global-Tech”), and Pentalpha Enterprises, Ltd. (“Pentalpha”) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,995,312 (the “’312 patent”). Almost seven years later, a jury found that Pentalpha had willfully infringed, and induced infringement of, claim 1 of the ’312 patent and awarded SEB $4.65 million in damages. Pentalpha filed post-trial motions on a number of grounds. The district court granted them in part, reducing the amount of damages by $2 million. The district court awarded SEB enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees, but later vacated that award in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc). On appeal, Pentalpha raises a host of issues that relate to the jury verdict and the district court’s post-trial rulings. SEB cross-appeals the district court’s enhanced damages ruling. Detecting no reversible error in the district court proceedings, this court affirms.

Bryson, claim construction, damages, direct infringement, electric deep fryer, induced infringement, Linn, Rader
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that U.S. Patent No. 6,295,075 (the ’075 patent), owned by ResQNet.com, Inc., is valid and is infringed by Lansa, Inc. The district court also ruled that ResQNet’s U.S. Patent No. 5,831,608 (the ’608 patent) is not infringed. The court awarded damages of $506,305 for past infringement based on a hypothetical royalty of 12.5%, plus prejudgment interest. The court denied ResQNet’s motion for a permanent injunction, and imposed a license, at a royalty of 12.5%, for future activity covered by the ’075 patent. The court assessed sanctions under Rule 11 against ResQNet and its counsel.

claim construction, damages, Lourie, Newman, Rader, sanctions, screen recognition, software, terminal emulation
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Therasense, Inc. (now Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc.) and Abbott Laboratories appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 5,820,551 (“the ’551 patent”) were invalid due to obviousness and that the entire ’551 patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The district court also found nearly all of the asserted claims of the ’745 patent invalid due to anticipation.

anticipation, blood glucose test strip, claim construction, diabetes, Dyk, failure to disclose, Friedman, inequitable conduct, Linn, obviousness
Therasense, Inc. v. Beckton, Dickinson and Co.

Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories (collectively “Abbott”) appeal the final decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which entered judgment in accordance with a jury verdict that claims 11 and 12 of Abbott’s U.S. Patent No. 5,628,890 (“the ’890 patent”) are infringed by Becton, Dickinson & Co. and Nova Biomedical Corp. (collectively “BD/Nova”) but are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 ¶ 1, and denied Abbott’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and for new trial. Although judgment was entered in favor of BD/Nova on all counts relating to the ’890 patent, BD/Nova cross-appeals the jury’s underlying finding that it infringes claims 11 and 12.

anticipation, blood glucose test strip, Dyk, electrode strip, erroneous jury instruction, Friedman, Linn, obviousness
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Boehringer”) appeal from a final judgment that Boehringer’s U.S. Patent No. 4,886,812 (the ’812 patent) is invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.

benzothiazole compounds, Dyk, Linn, obviousness-type double patenting, Prost, safe-harbor provision of 35 USC 121, terminal disclaimer
Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.

Schindler Elevator Corp. and Inventio AG (collectively “Schindler”) appeal the final decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which entered summary judgment in favor of Otis Elevator Co. (“Otis”) of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,689,094 (“the ’094 patent”).

claim construction, Dyk, elevator system, Friedman, Linn
Wyeth and Elan Pharma International, Ltd. v. Under Sec. of Commerce for Intellectual Property

On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that plaintiffs Wyeth and Elan Pharma International Ltd. (collectively, “Wyeth”) were entitled to extended patent term adjustments under 35 U.S.C. § 154(b) due to the Patent and Trademark Office’s (the “PTO’s”) delay in prosecuting their patent applications.

Moore, patent term adjustment, Plager, Rader
Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (“Philips”) appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s sua sponte dismissal of Philips’ civil suit against Cardiac Science Operating Co. (“Cardiac Science”). Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 146, Philips sought review in the district court of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (the “Board”) interference decision. Philips timely appealed the district court’s order dismissing Philips’ complaint with prejudice.

cardiac defibrillator, Friedman, Gajarsa, interference, Michel
Forest Group v. Bon Tool

Bon Tool Company (Bon Tool) appeals a final decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. After a bench trial, the district court found that the Forest Group, Inc. (Forest) falsely marked its stilts with intent to deceive the public, and the district court fined Forest $500 for a single decision to falsely mark. The district court also determined that U.S. Patent No. 5,645,515 (the ’515 patent) was not invalid, that Bon Tool did not infringe the ’515 patent, and that Forest had not violated the Lanham Act. The court declined to find the case exceptional or award attorney fees.

false marking, Moore, Plager, Rader, stilt
I4I v. Microsoft

I4i Limited Partnership (“i4i”) brought suit against Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”), alleging that the custom XML editor in certain versions of Microsoft Word (“Word”), Microsoft’s word-processing software, infringed its patent. After a seven-day trial, the jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement. The jury rejected Microsoft’s argument that the patent was invalid, and awarded $200 million in damages to i4i. The district court denied Microsoft’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for a new trial, finding that Microsoft had waived its right to challenge, among other things, the validity of the patent based on all but one piece of prior art and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s damage award. Although statutorily authorized to triple the jury’s damages award because of Microsoft’s willful infringement, the district court awarded only $40 million in additional damages. It also granted i4i’s motion for a permanent injunction. On appeal, Microsoft challenges the jury verdict and injunction on multiple grounds.

anticipation, claim construction, contributory infringement, data structure, direct infringement, induced infringement, metacode map, Moore, obviousness, on-sale bar, Prost, Schall, software
Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system