Filewrapper-old

Internet Discussion Systems as Prior Art
June 10, 2014

    The Federal Circuit's recent decision inSuffolk Technologies, LLC, v. AOL Inc., and Google Inc., adds another item to the list of "printed publications" that may preclude patenting of a claimed invention: posts on internet newsgroups. In June 2012 Suffolk Technologies, LLC sued Google Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,835 ("the '835 patent"), related to "methods a....... Read More


    New and Useful - August 26, 2013
    August 26, 2013

      · InUniversity of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit held that a patent lawsuit between a state university and the officers of another state university is not a controversy between two states. The case began when the University of Utah (“UUtah”) sued the Max Planck Institute and the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) to correct inventorship of two paten....... Read More


      New and Useful - January 31, 2013
      January 29, 2013

        · In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc. the Federal Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas decision finding Newegg Inc. liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639, all relating to electronic commerce. The Federal Circuit offered clarifying insight on the obviousness doctrine. The background facts are as follows: Soverain Soft....... Read More


        Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict
        January 03, 2013

          Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of its patents, Patent No. 6,201,839 and Patent No. 6,438,180, relat....... Read More


          Be careful what you wish for: broad claims found invalid
          March 22, 2007

            In another case making a return trip to the Federal Circuit, the court held that under its broad claim construction decided in the first appeal, the asserted claims were invalid in two patents as not enabled and in two more as anticipated. In order to secure a finding of infringement, the patentee, Liebel-Flarsheim, argued for the broader claim construction in the first appeal, only to be unable to sustain the br....... Read More


            No Crying Over Spilled Milk?.Held to Claim Construction During Prosecution
            February 23, 2007

              Nouri Hakim appealed the decisions of the District Court of Western Louisiana granting Cannon Avent Group's motion for summary judgment that Avent did not infringe one of Hakim's patents ("the '931 patent") and finding another of Hakim's patents invalid ("the '620 patent"). The patents-in-suit involved the art of non-spill drinking cups and the apparatus in the spout of the cup which prevents accidental spill....... Read More


              Working until the end of the year, Federal Circuit addresses a Law School Exam Type Case
              December 26, 2006

                The Federal Circuit affirmed a Southern District of Indiana decision that generic drug makers IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Dr. Reddy's Labratories, Ltd. (DRL) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. infringed Eli Lilly and Company's (Lilly) U.S. Patent no. 5,229,382. The '382 Patent claims chemical compound olanzapine and the use of the compound to treat schizophrenia. The infringers attempted to show that the '382 was....... Read More


                Federal Circuit Addresses On Sale Bar
                December 18, 2006

                  In Plumtree Software, Inc. v. Datamize, LLC, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals revisited the issue of determining when an invention is on sale within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 102(b). A claimed invention is considered to be on sale under ? 102(b) if the invention is sold or offered for sale more than one year before the filing date of the patent application. If the applicant files a patent application after th....... Read More


                  Enablement standard for prior art less stringent than enablement standard for patents
                  November 21, 2006

                    The Federal Circuit, in Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc., discussed the requirements for a prior art reference to be enabled, and thus anticipate a patent. Aventis is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,527,814, covering the use of the compound riluzole to treat ALS, commonly known as Lou Gehrig's disease. Impax wanted to produce a generic version of riluzole,so it filed an abbreviated new dru....... Read More


                      Newer Posts Older Posts  

                    Purpose

                    The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                    Disclaimer

                    McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                    Connect with MVS

                    Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                    Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                    Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                      I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.