Filewrapper-old

New and Useful - April 23, 2013
April 23, 2013

    · InK-Tech Telecoms v. Time Warner Cable, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the standard for evaluating the adequacy of complaints alleging direct patent infringement remains Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Form 18"). K-Tech filed separate complaints against Direct TV and Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the same day, alleging infringeme....... Read More


    Equivalent not tangentially related to amendment, doctrine of equivalents unavailable
    March 20, 2007

      In a case coming before the Federal Circuit for the second time, the court reversed a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of prosecution history estoppel. The court rejected the patentee's argument that the amendment was only tangentially related to the equivalent, thus the Festo presumption of surrender of equivalents was not rebutted, and not infringement was found. Judge Rade....... Read More


      Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence
      February 27, 2007

        In a second appearance before the Federal Circuit, AquaTex again appealed a decision of the District Court that Techniche Solutions' Cooling Apparel did not infringe their U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977 for a protective multi-layered liquid retaining composition. The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the lower court's finding of no literal infringement while remanding the case back to the District Court for furt....... Read More


        "Critical" ratio in claim does not get the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents
        January 19, 2007

          Today's lesson from the Federal Circuit: be careful not to make a claim limitation "critical," or you may lose the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents for that element. The court found that the claimed weight ratio of two drugs was critical in part because other claims recited a range of ratios, but the claim at issue simply recited a specific ratio, "about 1:5." The court stated that permitting infringement....... Read More


          Showing a strong Spine, the Federal Circuit addresses the Doctrine of Equivalents
          November 21, 2006

            In DuPuy Spin, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment of non-infringement on Medtronics Vertex? model with regards to U.S. Patent No. 5,207,678 (the '678 patent). Additionally, the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court's judgment of non-infringement for Medtronics bottom-loaded screw device was proper and that the....... Read More


            Federal Circuit reverses claim construction but affirms infringement
            November 16, 2006

              Abraxis Bioscience (formerly AstraZeneca) is the holder of three patents on an improved formulation of an anesthetic, DIPRIVAN?. Prior formulations had the problem of increasing postoperative infections. The inventors discovered that by adding disodium edetate as an antimicrobial agent. This addition allowed DIPRIVAN? to be administered for up to 24 hours without a significant increased risk of infection. Mayn....... 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.