Dynacore Holdings Corp., et al. v. U.S. Philips Corp., et al.

DYNACORE HOLDINGS CORPORATION and DYNACORE PATENT LITIGATION TRUST, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. PHILIPS CORPORATION, and STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., and MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, and JVC AMERICAS CORP., and COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION, GATEWAY, INC., HEWLETT-PACKARD CORPORATION, and SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., and EPSON AMERICA, INC., and FUJITSU PC CORPORATION, FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
and FUJITSU COMPUTER PRODUCTS OF AMERICA, INC., and TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED, and WESTERN DIGITAL CORPORATION, and DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION and DELL MARKETING CORPORATION, and APPLE COMPUTER, INC., and NEC COMPUTERS INC., and NIKON INC., and ADAPTEC, INC., and SMARTDISK CORPORATION, and ADS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, and EVERGREEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and QUADMATION INCORPORATED, Defendants.
Federal Circuit, March 31, 2004.
“Dynacore Holdings Corp. and Dynacore Patent Litigation Trust (collectively, “Dynacore”) appeal the February 13, 2003 grant of defendants’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of United States Patent No. 5,077,732 (“the ‘732 Patent”)….Because Dynacore has not identified any circumstances under which the accused products, which incorporate technology that facilitates the design of networks compliant with an explicitly hierarchical industry-standard architecture, infringe the parallel network architecture required to meet numerous limitations of the ‘732 Patent claims, the defendants may not be held liable for either direct or indirect infringement. We therefore affirm.”
Copy of the case here.

Related Posts:

• Unova, Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al. (Fed.Cir.)
• Scanner Technologies Corporation v. Icos Vision Systems Corporation, N.V.
• Federal Circuit Update (Sept. 30 - Oct 5)

Unova, Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al. (Fed.Cir.)

UNOVA, INC., v. ACER INCORPORATED and ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and APPLE COMPUTER INC., GATEWAY INC., FUJITSU LTD., and FUJITSU PC CORPORATION and HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY and NEC CORPORATION and NEC COMPUTERS INC.
Federal Circuit, March 31, 2004
“Unova, Inc. appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entering summary judgment in favor of Hewlett-Packard Company on the ground that a settlement agreement between Unova and Compaq Computer Corporation released Hewlett-Packard from liability for infringement of various patents owned by Unova….Because we conclude that the Unova-Compaq settlement agreement did not release Hewlett-Packard from liability for infringement of Unova’s patents, we reverse and remand.”
Copy of the case here.

Related Posts:

• Dynacore Holdings Corp., et al. v. U.S. Philips Corp., et al.
• Mars, Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• Federal Circuit Update (September 13, 2004)

PatentIn 3.3 Training

USPTO Notice re: “The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will offer free training on its newest release of the sequence authoring software, PatentIn 3.3. The 2004 training dates are: May 21and September 10…Course Content: Overview of molecular biology; Overview of the sequence rules; and Hands-on authoring of several sequence listings varying in complexity…”

Related Posts:

• Everything you wanted to know about EFS-Web (new electronic filing system), but didn’t know who to ask
• Pair 7.0 training coming
• Update on EFS top ten filing errors post

USPTO Notice re Pre-First Office Action Interviews

Notice of Pilot Program to Permit Pre-First Office Action Interview for Applications Assigned to Art Units 3624 and 3628 and Request for Comments on Pilot Program (signed 30 March 2004) (31Mar2004) [PDF]

Related Posts:

• This week’s Official Gazette Notices
• USPTO wants feedback regarding CWUs (chemical structure drawings, mathematical formulae, protein crystal data, and table data)
• USPTO Notice re: tables

AIPLA | Quarterly Journal

I received the new AIPLA Quarterly Journal today. Volume 32, Number 1. Winter 2004. Includes the following articles:
The Interpretation of Patent Claims by the Markman Subcommittee of the Patent Litigation Committee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association;
Condemning a Patent: Taking Intellectual Property by Eminent Domain by Matthew S. Bethards; and
The Niche Market Manual: A Guide to Understanding the Niche Market Theory by Lori Kenemuth.
I haven’t read the other two, but the Markman article is an amazing summary of the law. A must read.
The articles are not available on the ‘Net, but here is the link to ordering information: AIPLA | Quarterly Journal

Related Posts:

• The Patent Lawyer(TM) Magazine
• Table of Contents - Jan. 2004 JPTOS
• rethink(ip)’s first podcast!

USPTO’s PCT Home Page

The PCT Home Page has been modified.

Certain Chapter I and Chapter II fees will increase, effective April 1, 2004, due to an adjustment in the exchange rate caused by currency fluctuation and the Current PCT Fee Schedule has been modified accordingly. The Announcements section has also been revised to include a summary of the fee changes.

Related Posts:

• Don’t forget, a number of PCT changes are effective today
• April PCT Newsletter
• International Patent Filings Exceed 110,000 for the Third Year Running

Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)

Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
Federal Circuit, March 30, 2002
“After a jury trial, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California entered judgment in favor of Genentech that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,054,561 are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because none of the asserted claims is entitled to priority to a series of applications filed in 1984, 1985, and 1986…Because Chiron did not adequately disclose or support the subject matter of its ’561 patent in its 1984, 1985, or 1986 applications, this court
affirms the district court’s denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and motion for a new trial.”
Copy of the case here.

Related Posts:

• Koito Manufacturing Co., LTD., et al. v. Turn-Key-Tech, LLC., et al. (Fed. Cir.)
• International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp. (Fed. Cir.)
• Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp. (Fed.Cir.)

Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience, N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.) (Fed. Cir.)

Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience, N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.)
Federal Circuit, March 30, 2004
“Monsanto Company filed an action … seeking a declaratory judgment that its transgenic corn products did not infringe four patents owned by Aventis … The patents at issue claim a variety of methods and products relating to the insertion of bacterial DNA into plants to give the plants resistance to certain insects. Besides contending that it did not infringe any of the four patents, Monsanto alleged that the four patents were unenforceable and that various claims of the patents were invalid. Aventis counterclaimed, alleging that Monsanto infringed certain claims of each of the four patents….We hold that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on Monsanto’s inequitable conduct claim, on its collateral estoppel claim, and on its noninfringement claim based on the construction of the claim term “Bt2.” Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment against Bayer and remand for further proceedings.”
Copy of the case here. Errata notice here.

Related Posts:

• Liebel-Flarsheim Company, et al. v. Medrad, Inc. (Fed. Cir.)
• International Rectifier Corp. v. Ixys Corp. (Fed. Cir.)
• Scanner Technologies Corporation v. Icos Vision Systems Corporation, N.V.

This Week’s Official Gazette Notices

Official Gazette Notices for 30 March 2004. Usual stuff, plus:

Reclassification Alert Report
Status of Office of Public Records Services

Related Posts:

• This week’s Official Gazette Notices
• This week’s Official Gazette Notices
• This week’s Official Gazette Notices

IPO Comments on Proposed USPTO Rules re Attorney Registration and Discipline

IPO’s comments submitted to the USPTO on many of the rules in the complex rulemaking proposal on registration and disciplinary requirements for patent attorneys.

Related Posts:

• AIPLA comments regarding proposed USPTO rules
• USPTO Rules….where’s the comparison chart?
• File Lots of Continuing Applications? Those days are soon over…