Last The Federal Circuit month at ON “INSUBSTANTIAL DIFFERENCES” TEST, “MAY FINDING OF NO INFRINGEM ENT LEAVES PATENTEE THE BEST LAWYER WIN” WITH “BITTER TASTE” Explicit definition of “ water-soluble polydextrose” in spec- This case “ provides a textbook example of the ification as limited to that prepared with citric acid cata- insubstantial nature of the ‘insu bstantial differences’ lyst effects disclaimer of other prior art acids. Cultor Corp. test, and its marginally legitimate child, ‘substantially the v. A.E . Staley Mfg. Co. , No. 99-1232 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 21, same way to achieve substantially the same result.” ’ 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Deere & Co. , No. 99-1593 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 15, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 EVIDENCE DOES NOT SUPPORT INEQUITABLE CONDUCT NOT ALL CLAIM LIM ITATIONS ARE ENTITLED TO Court revised district court’s ruling of unenforceability for EQUAL SCOPE OF EQUIVALENTS inequitable conduct before the PTO. Life Techs., Inc. v. Whether the result of the “ all elements rule,” prosecution Clontech Labs., Inc. , No. 99-1550 (Fed. Cir. history estoppel, or the inherent narrowness of the claim Sep. 21, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 language, many limitations warrant little, if any, range of equivalents. Moore U.S.A., Inc. v. Standard Register Co. , STATEM ENTS FROM TRADEM ARK REGISTRATION No. 98-1386 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 22, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . .1 PROCESS DO NOT CREATE J UDICIAL ESTOPPEL CEO contradicts statements to PTO regarding use in CORPORATION’S CONDUCT RAISES INFERENCE commerce during trademark registration process to THAT IM PLIED-IN-FACT CONTRACT TO ASSIGN save patent from on-sale bar. Lampi Corp. v. INVENTIVE RIGHTS WAS NOT FORM ED American Power Prods., Inc. , No. 00-1011 (Fed. Inventor’s failure to sign employment agreements Cir. Sep. 28, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 that assign inventions, and employer’s failure to further pursue the signing of these agreements, raises reasonable FEDERAL CIRCUIT “CLEARS UP” DISPUTE OVER inference that employer acquiesced to inventor’s refusal WATER PURIFICATION PATENT to convey ownership of inventions. Banks v. Unisys The best defense against hindsight-based obviousness Corp. , No. 00-1030 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 28, 2000) . . . . . . . .2 analysis is rigorous application of the requirement Washington, DC for a showing of a teaching or motivation to combine PTO’S ERROR COSTS PLAINTIFF 202-408-4000 prior art references. E colochem, Inc. v. Southern Certificate of correction to correct PTO’s failure to annex Cal. Edison Co. , No. 99-1043 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 7, 2000) . .8 software appendix to issued patent may be too late to save validity of patent. Southwest Software, Inc. v. Palo Alto ACCUSED INFRINGER “PRESSED” BY PREAM BLE Harlequin Inc. , No. 99-1213 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 18, 2000) . .3 650-849-6600 AND PROCEDURE Preamble’s statement of intended purpose is not a claim CLAIM CONSTRUCTION “UNDERM INES” INFRINGE- limitation. Heidelberg Harris, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Heavy M ENT FINDING AGAINST GOVERNM ENT ON M INE- Indus., Ltd. , No. 99-1100 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 18, 2000) FILLING PATENT Atlanta (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Court of Federal Claims placed undue emphasis on 404-653-6400 extrinsic evidence and gave little consideration to intrinsic evidence in interpreting claims. Dow Chem. COURT “FILTERS OUT” INFRINGEM ENT OF WATER Co. v. United States , No. 97-5035 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 6, Tokyo FILTER PATENT 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 011-813-3431-6943 Selected claim terms and prosecution history narrow interpretation of several claim limitations. Brita Wasser- IM PROVED EXCIPIENT PATENT NOT INFRINGED, Filter-Sys., GmbH v. Recovery E ng’g, Inc. , No. 99-1322 NOT INVALID (Fed. Cir. Sep. 21, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) . .10 Substantial evidence supports jury finding of lack of Brussels equivalence. Upjohn Co. v. MOVA Pharm. Corp. , No. 011-322-646-0353 99-1092 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 11, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 COURT “TRACKS” INVENTORSHIP OF TRANSPONDER PATENTS SINGLE REFERENCE RENDERS CLAIM S OBVIOUS Factual issues remain for jury concerning contributions Court overrules jury verdict of no invalidity and finds of unnamed inventor. Trovan, Ltd. v. Sokymat SA , claims obvious in view of single prior art reference. No. 99-1474 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 8, 2000) (non- Sibia Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp. , No. precedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 99-1381 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 6, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 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 t he full t ext of each opinion by visit ing our Web sit e ( www.finnegan.com ).
Recommend
More recommend
