Stone v. Perpetual Motion (9th Cir.) [copyright case]

Congrats to my partner (Robert L. Shaver) on winning the appeal in the case Stone v. Perpetual Motion (No. 02-36084, unpublished) on Tuesday, January 27, 2004. Ninth Circuit upheld the district court, finding that no reasonable juror could find substantial similarity of ideas and expressions.

Related Posts:

• JibJab case settles
• Protecting your photos on the Internet
• INDUCE: Patent

Ruiz, et al. v. A.B. Chance Company (Fed. Cir.)

Ruiz, et al. v. A.B. Chance Company
Federal Circuit
Decided January 29, 2004
Holding: “…this court holds that the district court did not clearly err in finding a motivation to combine the prior art references in the nature of the problem at issue. In addition, this court holds that the district court did not clearly err in discounting Chance’s evidence of secondary considerations. Accordingly, this court affirms the judgment of the district court.”

Additional summary probably found here (Intellectual Property Owners Association web site) within a week of the decision. Click here for a copy of this Federal Circuit court opinion.

Related Posts:

• Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. (and Multi-Tech Systems, Inc. v. Net2Phone, Inc.) (Federal Circuit)
• Superguide Corporation v. Directv Enterprises, Inc., et al. (Fed. Cir).
• Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et al. (Fed. Cir.)

National Steel Car, LTD. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, LTD, et al. (Fed. Cir.)

National Steel Car, LTD. v. Canadian Pacific Railway, LTD, et al.
Federal Circuit
Decided: January 29, 2004
Holding: “In conclusion, we hold that the district court abused its discretion in determining that NSC had demonstrated that CPR’s defenses lacked substantial merit and in granting the preliminary injunction. Based on the record before us, both CPR’s section 272 argument and its argument concerning the invalidity of the ‘575 patent on the basis of obviousness raise defenses with substantial merit.”
The court thus reversed the district court’s preliminary injunction.
Copy of case here (self extracting MS Word document).

Related Posts:

• Inland Steel Company v. LTV Steel Company, et al. (Federal Circuit)
• International Rectifier Corp. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Toro v. Deere (Fed. Cir. 2004)

Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Federal Circuit (January 29, 2004)

Court found that the doctrine of equivalents did not apply (prosecution history estoppel–Glaxo amended claims to recite the critical term HPMC in order to overcome a rejection for lack of enablement).

“Because Glaxo cannot prove infringement literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, this court affirms the United States District Court for the Northern District of California” which ruled that IMPAX’s generic product did not infringe Glaxo’s patent for the antidepressant Wellbutrin SR.

Copy of case here.

Copy of Impax press release here.

Related Posts:

• Smithkline Beecham Corp. (DBA GlaxoSmithKline) v. Excel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. Apotex, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
• Dr. Harry Gaus v. Conair Corporation (Fed.Cir.)

Smithkline Beecham Corp. (DBA GlaxoSmithKline) v. Excel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir.)

Smithkline Beecham Corp. (DBA GlaxoSmithKline) v. Excel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
Federal Circuit
DECIDED: January 29, 2004
“Record evidence shows that Glaxo narrowed the scope of claims 14-15 and 18-19 by amendment during prosecution of the ’798 patent to recite the critical term HPMC. The reason for making these narrowing amendments was to overcome a rejection for lack of enablement because the claims improperly embraced a genus of sustained release agents. However, the present record does not address the foreseeability of PVA at the time of the narrowing amendment. Thus, this record does not address whether Glaxo has rebutted the presumption of surrendered equivalents. Upon remand, the trial court may address whether PVA constitutes a foreseeable sustained release agent or an unforeseeable technology. Because a material issue of fact remains to be resolved, Excel was not entitled to summary judgment of noninfringement as a matter of law. The district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to Excel is vacated, and the case is remanded for further adjudication on the merits.”
Copy of the case here.

Related Posts:

• Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
• International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp. (Fed. Cir.)
• Liebel-Flarsheim Company, et al. v. Medrad, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

USPTO patent assignments can now be searched on-line

Cambia’s patent blog (click here for expanded info) reporting something I didn’t know:

“The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now has an on-line searchable database of assignments for U.S. patents and published patent applications. Assignment data for pending (and unpublished) and abandoned applications are not available.”

Related Posts:

• Revision of Power of Attorney and Assignment Practice
• More on on-line viewing of pending patent applications (PAIR/IFW)
• Fax filing assignments

Inventor of the three finger salute retires

David Bradley, the IBM inventor of the three finger salute (CTR-ALT-DEL) has retired according to this Newsday article. Bradley is quoted as saying “I may have invented it, but Bill [Gates] made it famous.” As you remember, Gates’ prior invention of the “blue screen of death” resulted in the necessity for Mr. Bradley’s invention…thereby making the three finger salute famous.

I must say that Gates has (at least partially) had his revenge…since I upgraded to XP, my use of the three finger salute is easily down 95% over the last couple years.

Related Posts:

• Black American Inventors…can you help?
• The 60th Anniversary of D-Day is coming up on Sunday (June 6, 2004)
• National Inventor’s Hall of Fame

Microsoft v. Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. to go to the jury

Forbes reporting that Microsoft has lost on summary judgment in a case in Arizona, meaning the case will go to the jury. RCT is suing Microsoft for infringement of patents covering halftone technology used in graphic displays and printing. HP, Lexmark and Epson opted to license the patents when charged with infringement. Another article at InfoWorld.com.

Related Posts:

• Microsoft settles with MikeRoweSoft
• Cease & Desist Letters –> Declaratory Judgment Lawsuits
• Judge Upholds $520,000,000 Microsoft Verdict

Poland joining the EPO

March 1, 2004, Poland joins the EPO. Source (and more details): Cambia’s patent blog.

Related Posts:

• IP in Poland
• March PCT Newsletter

Patent Litigation killed Wilbur Wright?

Earlier I stumbled on this interesting discussion of how patent litigation may have brought about the physical demise of Wilbur Wright. See the Washington Post article, discussion via Ernie The Attorney and Dennis Kennedy

Related Posts:

• On tour now!!! The Blawging Wilburys
• New Kid on the Blawgk - IP Litigation Law Blog
• A must read for bloggers….