O CT O BER 2 0 0 1 Last The Federal Circuit month at M ont h at a Glance LORAL PATENT SURVIVES SUM M ARY J UDGM ENT OF CLAIM S ANTICIPATED BY INHERENT FEATURES OF PRIOR ART INVALIDITY The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art Under the “ rule of reason,” to antedate a prior publication, an composition or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s func- inventor’s testimony must be sufficiently corroborated by inde- tioning does not render the old composition patentably new. pendent evidence, but not necessarily documentary evidence. E MI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp ., No. lec. Indus. Co. , No. 00-1487 00-1508 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Matsushita E (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 “M AGIC WORDS” UNNECESSARY IN SETTLEM ENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION LIM ITED TO CONVENTIONAL AGREEM ENT FOR COURT TO RETAIN J URISDICTION TO PRINTING TECHNIQUES AT TIM E OF PATENT FILING ENFORCE AGREEM ENT Because ink-jet printing was not a conventional method of print- Relevant language of settlement agreement and dismissal order ing images on foodstuffs at time of patent application, “ screen manifests Court’s intent to retain jurisdiction. Schaefer Fan printing” may not be construed to cover ink-jet printing. Co. v. J & D Mfg. , No. 00-1545 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2001) . . . . . .9 nters., Inc. v. Lucks Co ., No. 01-1015 (Fed. Cir. Kopykake E Sept. 10, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS NATURAL GAS PATENTS DEFINITE Court finds support in specification to guide one of ordinary skill PTO’S ACTION SAVES PATENT FROM INVALIDITY in the art to understand claims. E xxon Research & E ng’g Co. v. PTO’s retention of one claim in continuation application for filing United States , No. 00-5077 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2001) . . . . . .10 purposes, even though instructed to cancel all claims, preserves claim of priority to antedate prior art. E FEDERAL CIRCUIT “DIALS IN” ON TELEPHONE SECURITY xxon Corp. v. Phillips Petroleum Co ., No. 00-1173 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2001) . . . . . . .2 DEVICE PATENT Court affirms summary judgment of invalidity based on prior COURT RECOGNIZES RIGHT TO “REPAIR” A PATENTED invention, given corroborating evidence to support affiant’s PRODUCT EVEN IF IT IS NOT BROKEN testimony. Sandt Tech., Ltd. v. Resco Metal & Plastics Corp. , A purchaser has a right to replace or modify an unpatented com- No. 00-1449 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 ponent for any reason, not just for repairing a worn or broken part, so long as there is not a reconstruction that creates a new COURT REVERSES FINDING OF INVALIDITY OF GENENTECH’S article. Surfco Haw. v. Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. , No. 00-1356 (Fed. hGH PATENT Cir. Sept. 5, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Since claim construction does not require or exclude intracellular cleavage to remove methionine, claims are enabled. Bio- INEQUITABLE CONDUCT RENDERS SOFA PATENT Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc. , No. 00-1223 (Fed. UNENFORCEABLE Cir. Sept. 27, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 The intent element of inequitable conduct is usually proven by Washington, DC inferences drawn from facts, with the collection of inferences per- DISTRICT COURTS CANNOT COM PEL PTO TO CHANGE 202-408-4000 mitting a confident judgment that deceit has occurred. GFI, Inc. ORDER OF INVENTORS v. Franklin Corp. , No. 00-1268 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2001) . . . . . .3 35 U.S.C. §§ 255 and 256 do not give district courts authority to order PTO to change the order of inventors listed on a NO SPECIAL RULE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR patent. Fina Tech., Inc. v. E wen , No. 00-1578 (Fed. Cir. Sept. NONNUM ERICALLY LIM ITED DESCRIPTIVE CLAIM TERM S 17, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Palo Alto No estoppel or laches where accused fails to show prejudice. 650-849-6600 E colab, Inc. v. E nvirochem, Inc. , No. 00-1402 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 COURT REM ANDS CASE CONCERNING LEAF BLOWER PATENT FOR TRIAL ON DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS “OR” EXCLUDES BOTH Genuine issues as to the insubstantiality of differences concerning Atlanta Claim term “ or” construed to include only one of two recited the functions performed by the claim and the accused leaf 404-653-6400 alternatives; therefore, no infringement. Kustom Signals, Inc. v. blower, which must be determined by a jury. Toro Co. v. White Applied Concepts, Inc., No. 99-1564 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2001) . .4 Consol. Indus., Inc. , No. 00-1561 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 24, 2001) . .12 Y2K PATENT INVALID Claimed alternatives anticipated by disclosure of only one of INFRINGEM ENT ACTION DISM ISSED FOR LACK OF PERSONAL Tokyo the alternatives. Brown v. 3M , No. 00-1552 (Fed. Cir. J URISDICTION 011-813-3431-6943 Sept. 18, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Plaintiff fails to show minimum business contacts between out-of- state Defendants and New Y ork state. Pieczenik v. Dyax Corp. , COURT AFFIRM S HOLDING OF WILLFUL INFRINGEM ENT OF No. 00-1519 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 CATHETER PATENT Brussels Statements from related prosecution history not relevant where 011-322-646-0353 they concern limitations not found in asserted claims. Advanced “GNARLY” HOLDING OF NONINFRINGEM ENT ON Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc ., No. 00-1417 (Fed. SURFBOARD PATENT Cir. Sept. 10, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Infringement issue turns on proper interpretation of “ lateral” and “ side” concerning fixing elements for removable surfboard fin. CLAIM S TO ELECTRICAL STEEL COM POSITION FOUND Fin Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc. , No. 00-1516 (Fed. Cir. OBVIOUS Sept. 12, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Evidence supports obvious combination of antimony additive to annealing operation for producing cold-rolled steel. In re Inland Steel Co. , No. 00-1143 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 19, 2001) . . . . . . . . . .6 SECTION 102(g) APPLIES DESPITE PRIOR INVENTOR’S EDITED BY VINCE KOVALICK UNAWARENESS OF INVENTION’S PATENTABILITY QUESTIONS REM AIN CONCERNING CAPABILITIES OF To establish prior invention, the prior inventor need not establish ACCUSED SOFTWARE that he was the first to appreciate the patentability of the inven- Court finds genuine issue of fact concerning operation of accused tion. He need only show that he appreciated the fact of what he virus-scanning software under normal operating conditions. made. Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc. , No. 01-1003 (Fed. Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp. , No. 00-1373 (Fed. Cir. Cir. Sept. 28, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Sept. 17, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 This publication brings you a synopsis of patent cases decided last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on slip opinions received from the court. You can review and download the full text of each opinion by visiting our website at www.finnegan.com
Recommend
More recommend
