The Federal Circuit month at SERIES OF THREADS DECISION TURNS IN - PDF document

M A Y 1 9 9 9 Last The Federal Circuit month at “SERIES OF THREADS” DECISION “TURNS” IN FAVOR OF CORPORATE PRESIDENT LIABLE FOR ATTORNEY FEES M ont h at a Glance Corporate president who committed inequitable conduct on PATENTEE Reversing summary judgment of noninfringement, Federal PTO could be added as defendant even after an award of Circuit applies ordinary technical meaning to claim limitation, attorney fees. Ohio Cellular Prods. Corp. v. Adams USA, Inc. , finding no reason to apply specific requirements of preferred No. 98-1448 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 embodiment. Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc. , No. 97-1470 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 INFRINGEM ENT FINDING “TOOK RIGHT DIRECTION” ON WHEN ONE EQUALS TWO STEERING CONTROL PATENT Federal Circuit interprets “ all-elements” rule and estoppel Federal Circuit rejects accused infringers attempts to narrow “ presumption” set forth in Warner-J enkinson . Festo Corp. v. claim limitations from their ordinary meaning and affirmed Shoketsu Kinzoku Kohyo Kabushiki Co. , No. 95- 1066 (Fed. Cir. summary judgment of infringement. J ohnson Worldwide Apr. 19, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Assoc., Inc. v. Zebco Corp. , No. 98-1331 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVISITS § 101 AND “M ATHEM ATICAL ALGORITHM EXCEPTION” Court finds utility in practical application of mathematical CHANGE FROM PREJ UDGM ENT TO POSTJ UDGM ENT algorithm that produces useful, concrete, and tangible result. INTEREST REDUCES DAM AGES AWARD AT& T Corp. v. E xcel Comm., Inc. , No. 98-1338 (Fed. Cir. District court should have awarded interest at postjudgment Apr. 14, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 interest rate from initial judgment entered several years ago, even though Federal Circuit had previously vacated that initial judgment. Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc. , No. 98-1385 WHO BEARS BURDENS ON HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Hypothetical claim analysis cannot be used to redraft granted claim by both narrowing and broadening claim at the same time. Although alleged infringer bears burden to come for- BOARD FALLS INTO “HINDSIGHT TRAP” ward on patentability of hypothetical claim, patentee, bearing Warning against the temptations of the forbidden zone of burden of persuasion on infringement, and thus must show hindsight, Federal Circuit reverses Board’s finding of obvious- unpatentability. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc. , ness absent specific factual findings concerning motivation or No. 98-1521 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 suggestion to combine prior art references. In re Dembiczak , No. 98-1498 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 28, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 COM M ENTS IN BACKGROUND AND SUM M ARY OF PATENT LIM IT SCOPE OF M EANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIM ITA- TION “CLARIFYING” ORDER PROVES CONFUSING Comments in specification distinguishing invention from prior Federal Circuit clarifies its previous clarifying order, permitting Washington, DC art configuration prevent later inclusion of that configuration new trial on issues of validity. TransLogic Corp. v. Tele E ng’g, 202-408-4000 within means-plus-function claim language. Signtech USA, Ltd. Inc. , No. 98-1392 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30,1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 v. Vutek, Inc. , No. 98-1171 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 1999) . . . . . . . .5 “M EANS-PLUS-FUNCTION-PLUS-STRUCTURE” DOES NOT UNCOVERED CAM ERA OPENING INFRINGES “LENS WIN- INVOKE § 112, ¶ 6 DOW M EANS” UNDER DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS Palo Alto Limitation presumptively falling under § 112, ¶ 6 is removed Court agrees with the jury finding of infringement. Rejects 650-849-6600 by additional structural limitations. Claims of tortious interfer- willfulness. Ultrak, Inc. v. Radio E ng’g Indus., Inc. , No. 97-1523 ence with prospective business advantage and unfair competi- (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 1999)(nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . .12 tion survive summary judgment. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc. , No. 98-1076 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Atlanta INADEQUATE TESTING EVIDENCE DOOM S J UNIOR PARTY 404-653-6400 PRACTITIONER VIOLATES DUTY OF CANDOR IN INTERFERENCE Against a strong dissent, Court affirms disciplinary action J unior party fails to show successful testing of invention or against practitioner for misrepresenting information filed in recognition and appreciation of success. Cavanagh v. appeal to Commissioner. Lipman v. Dickinson , No. 96-1548 McMahon , No. 98-1304 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 7, 1999) (nonprece- (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 dential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Tokyo 011-813-3431-6943 COURT “SEES THROUGH” IM PLIED LICENSEE THEORY ON WINDOW FRAM E PATENT CONTEM PT SANCTIONS NOT “CIVIL” ENOUGH Inducer of infringement cannot rely on implied license to Sanction enjoining sale of all existing products proves punitive direct infringer where inducer fails to show no noninfringing rather than coercive. RMT, Inc. v. Bhat Indus., Inc. , alternative uses by direct infringer. Glass E quip. Dev., Inc. v. No. 98-1272 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 1999)(nonprecedential Brussels Besten, Inc. , No. 96-1467 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 1999) . . . . . . . . .8 decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 011-322-646-0353 PARTIES AGREEM ENT ON STEP-PLUS-FUNCTION INTER- PRETATION SUPPORTS INFRINGEM ENT FINDING FABRIC PATENT “FRAYED” Court finds accused material used in making running equip- Court finds evidence to support jury finding of invalidity. ment to tracks disclosed materials. Infringement affirmed. Gates Formed-Fibre Prods., Inc. v. Delaware Valley Corp ., Seal-Flex, Inc. v. Athletic Track & Court Constr., No. 98-1432 No. 98-1397 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 13, 1999)(nonprecedential (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 COVENANT NOT TO SUE “COOLS OFF” DISPUTE OVER CROSS LICENSE DOES NOT OBLIGATE SUCCESSOR TO EDITED BY VINCE KOVALICK OVEN TECHNOLOGY LICENSE OWN PATENTS Covenant not to sue removes declaratory judgment jurisdic- Cross license greement does not obligate successor to license tion over noninfringement and invalidity claims. And, specu- its own patents by assuming rights and obligations of original lation over possible future products does not establish a pres- licensee under the agreement. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. ent controversy. Amana Refrigeration, Inc. v. Quadlux, Inc. , No. Altera Corp. , No. 98-1090 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 1999)(nonpre- 98-1200 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 dential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 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