Last The Federal Circuit month at COURT “TAKES A BITE” OUT OF APPLE Rejecting Apple’s claim constructions, Court affirms summary judgment of invalidity of several asserted claims and remands for findings concerning obviousness of certain other claims. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Sys., Inc. , No. 99-1165 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 CONTINUED INFRINGEM ENT “BREEDS CONTEM PT” Accused infringer’s sales of infringing device with only minor changes after entry of injunction justifies finding of contempt. Stryker Corp. v. Davol Inc. , No. 99-1202 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 DISTRICT COURT M UST M AKE GRAHAM FINDINGS TO SUPPORT J UDGM ENT OF OBVIOUSNESS Federal Circuit vacates district court’s judgment of invalidity for obviousness and remands for fact findings concerning scope and content of prior art, differences between claims and prior art, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co. , No. 99-1557 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 6, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 CLAIM TERM “INTEGRAL THEREWITH” PROVES INTEGRAL TO DETERM INATION OF INFRINGEM ENT Term “ integral therewith” in product claim does not warrant reading “ co-extrusion” process step from specification into claim. Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp. , No. 99-1427 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Washington, DC 202-408-4000 CLAIM S “TUM BLE” AS OBVIOUS Court affirms Board’s rejection of claims for “ tumbling” the air-fuel mixture entering on Palo Alto engine cylinder. In re Aoyama , No. 00-1213 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 18, 2000) (nonprecedential 650-849-6600 decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY M ISCONDUCT WARRANTS DEFAULT J UDGM ENT Atlanta Defendants’ destruction of evidence and alterations of sales invoices warrants default 404-653-6400 judgment of infringement. Videojet Sys. Int’l, Inc. v. E agle Inks, Inc., No. 00-1154 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Tokyo FEDERAL CIRCUIT “RELIEVES PRESSURE” FROM SUIT ON PRESSURE SENSOR 011-813-3431-6943 PATENT Court affirms summary judgment of noninfringement, no false advertising, no misappropriation of trade secrets, and no breach of fiduciary duty. Utah Med. Brussels 011-322-646-0353 Prods., Inc. v. Clinical Innovations Ass’n , Inc. , No. 00-1140 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 EDITED BY VINCE KOVALICK This publication brings you a synopsis of patent cases decided last m onth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on slip opinions received from the court. You can review and dow nload the full text of each opinion by visiting our Web site ( www.finnegan.com ).
L A ST M O N T H AT T H E F E D E R A L C I R C U I T Court “Takes a Bite” Out of Apple district court’s finding that the two asserted independent claims of the ‘540 patent were invalid as anticipated. However, because the Lawrence F. Galvin district court had failed to separately consider the dependent claims, the Federal Circuit con- [J udges: Archer (author), Newman, and ducted an analysis of these eight claims, broken Clevenger] down into three groups. First, the Federal Circuit found ample evi- In Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Systems, dence to affirm the finding that five of the Inc. , No. 99-1165 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2000), the dependent claims were invalid as anticipated. Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s claim Second, because the district court had read a construction and part of its SJ of invalidity for key limitation out of two of the other depend- anticipation of certain asserted claims, but ent claims, the Federal Circuit provided a prop- reversed the judgment with respect to other er claim interpretation, determined that these claims and remanded for findings concerning claims were not anticipated by the prior art, obviousness. The Court also found no error and remanded the question of obviousness of with the district court’s conclusion that Apple these two claims back to the district court. Computers, Inc. (“ Apple” ) had conducted an Third, regarding the dependent claim for which adequate pretrial investigation. Articulate had argued obviousness in lieu of Apple owns several patents directed to the anticipation, the Federal Circuit reversed the 01 page generation of multiple, simultaneously active finding of anticipation due to the absence of windows (“ floating windows” ) in graphical user factual support, and vacated and remanded for interfaces for computers. In a lawsuit filed in additional findings concerning obviousness. the United States District Court for the Finally, the Federal Circuit affirmed that Northern District of California, Apple asserted Apple’s diligent policing of its intellectual prop- four of these patents, including U.S. Patent No. erty, coupled with the existence of a presuit 5,469,540 (“ the ‘540 patent” ), against the investigation opinion that Apple offered for in PowerSecretary computer-dictation software camera inspection warranted a finding that the product developed by Articulate Systems, Inc. case was not exceptional as argued by (“ Articulate” ). After a series of SJ motions by Articulate. Articulate, the lawsuit was narrowed to ten claims of the ’540 patent, including two inde- pendent claims, asserted against the Microsoft Windows-version of PowerSecretary. Continued Infringement “Breeds Articulate then moved for SJ of invalidity of Contempt” the asserted claims of the ’540 patent, arguing that nine of the claims were anticipated by the prior art and that the remaining claim was obvi- Gregory A. Chopskie ous in light of the prior art. After a Markman hearing, the district court granted Articulate’s SJ [J udges: M ayer (author), Newman, and motion, but found all ten asserted claims invalid Schall] as anticipated by the prior art. The district court refused to find the case exceptional, how- In Stryker Corp. v. Davol Inc. , No. 99-1202 ever, or to grant attorney fees to Articulate. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2000), the Federal Circuit On appeal, Apple argued that the district affirmed a district court’s grant of SJ of infringe- court’s judgment was based on an improper ment and award of contempt damages against claim construction of several key claim terms, Davol Inc. (“ Davol” ) for its continued infringe- including the term “ window.” The Federal ment after issuance of a permanent injunction. Circuit rejected each of Apple’s allegations of Stryker Corp. (“ Stryker” ) charged Davol error concerning the independent claims and with the infringement of Stryker’s U.S. Patent affirmed the district court’s claim constructions. No. 5,484,402 (“ the ‘402 patent” ) that claims Having done so, the Federal Circuit affirmed the a surgical irrigation system. Davol counter- . F I N N EG A N H EN D ERSO N FA RA B O W G A RRET T D U N N ER L L P
Recommend
More recommend
