Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13"

Transcription

1 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JDS THERAPEUTICS, LLC; NUTRITION 21, LLC, Plaintiffs, -v- PFIZER INC.; WYETH LLC; WYETH CONSUMER HEALTHCARE, LTD.; WYETH CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LLC, 12 Civ (JSR) MEMORANDUM ORDER Defendants. JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J. Plaintiffs JDS Therapeutics, LLC and Nutrition 21, LLC (collectively "JDS") bring this case asserting claims of patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment against defendants Pfizer Inc., WyethLLC, Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, Ltd., and Wyeth Consumer Healthcare LLC (collectively, "Pfizer"). JDS's patent infringement claims involve United States Patents numbered 5,948,772 ("'772 patent"), 6,136,317 ("'317 patent"), 6,143,301 ("'301 patent"), 6,251,889 ("'889 patent"), and 6,471,998 ("'998 patent"), as well as Reissued Patent No. RE39,480 ("Re '480 patent"). On April 12, 2013, after full briefing, the Court conducted a hearing to aid its construction of terms that appear in the patents-in-suit. See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). On May 21, 2013, the Court resolved the parties' disputes

2 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 2 of 13 regarding the meanings of the terms. This Memorandum Order reaffirms and explains the reasons for the constructions in the May 21 Order. Claim construction is a matter of law, exclusively within the province of the Court. Id. at In Phillips v. AWH Corp., an en banc Federal Circuit elaborated the principles that govern claim construction. 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). " [T] he words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning," which "is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at (internal quotation marks omitted). By way of further elaboration, the Federal Circuit has focused courts' attention on "the importance of intrinsic evidence," which consists of the claims, specification, and prosecution history. Id. at "A claim construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself, for that is the language the patentee has chosen to... distinctly claim... as his invention." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Accordingly, "one of the cardinal sins of patent law [is] reading a limitation from the written description [contained in the specification] into the claims." Phillips, 415 F.3d at Moreover, "the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read 2

3 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 3 of 13 the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Id. at At the same time, however, the Federal Circuit has also stated that "the best source for understanding a technical term is the specification from which it arose, informed, as needed, by the prosecution history." Id. at 1315 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). The prosecution history can frequently "inform the meaning of the claim language by demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be." Id. at In the instant case, however, the parties agree that, with the exception of the Re '480 patent, there is no significant prosecution history to aid the Court' s construction. See, e.g., Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief ("Def.. Cl. Br."), Mar. 8, 2013, at 6. Finally, courts may look to extrinsic evidence to define claim terms, which consists of "all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal quotation marks omitted). However, extrinsic evidence may not be used "to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence." Id. at

4 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 4 of 13 With these claim construction principles in mind, the Court now turns to explaining its construction of the disputed claim terms. First, in its May 21 Order, the Court concluded that the chemical terms "chromic tripicolinate," "picolinic acid," and "nicotinic acid" require no construction. Pfizer proposes construing all three chemical terms so that each is represented by a formal chemical name, its symbol, and a graphical representation. However, the Court agrees with JDS that such a construction injects "highly-technical chemical formulas, which, even if precise," substitute scientific jargon that would be meaningless to a jury. Plaintiffs' Opening Claim Construction Brief ("Pl. Cl. Br."), at 9. It needs to be noted, in that respect, that a court construing the terms of a patent has to keep one eye cocked on the putative jury that may ultimately decide the parties' basic dispute, for a claim construction that is incomprehensible to a jury may be, in the end, of little use. See generally Jed S. Rakoff, Down with Patentese, 21 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 839 (2011). Additionally, the Court finds that JDS's proposed constructions of "chromic tripicolinate" and "nicotinic acid" impermissibly broaden the claims to include other, discrete substances. Next, the Court construes "essential metals" as "metals that are necessary for the performance of vital biological functions in a body." The parties disagree about two main issues whether more 4

5 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 5 of 13 than one metal is required by the use of the plural form in the patent, and whether the Court should add a parenthetical reference to "minerals" in its construction. The Court believes that in construing the term "essential metals" by itself, it is sufficient to use the term "metals" as it appears in the claim language, although, as discussed more fully below, the Court does adopt a more specific requirement of plurality in certain contexts. Also, the Court excludes the parenthetical reference to minerals because Pfizer correctly notes that the term "minerals" is broader than "metals." Defendants' Responsive Claim Construction Brief ("Def. Cl. Resp."), Mar. 22, 2013, at 13. Finally, JDS fails to provide any compelling reason to include the phrase "necessary to maintain good health" in the construction. Turning to the claims within the '772 family of patents, 1 the Court first explains why it does not import limitations relating to effectiveness from various claims' preambles. While, in principle, preambles can limit claims, see Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999), the Court will not use a gloss on various preambles to narrow claim language that has a clear and plain meaning. The Court agrees with JDS that the plain meaning of the preambles to claims in the '772 family of patents is "clear on [its] face, and [that] a person having ordinary skill in the art 1 The parties agree that five of the six patents-in-suit heavily overlap: The '317, '301, '889, and '998 patents all claim priority to U. S. Patent Application 09/144,026, which ultimately issued as the '772 patent. The Court refers to these patents collectively as the "'772 family of patents." 5

6 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 6 of 13 readily knows that the claimed methods and compositions are not subject to such rigorous tests of medical efficacy. " Pl. Cl. Br., at 14. Furthermore, other dependent claims in the '772 family of patents actually use the word "effective," thus giving rise to a presumption that the independent claims do not contain such a limitation. Plaintiffs' Opposing Claim Construction Brief ("Pl. Cl. Resp."), Mar. 22, 2013, at 5-6 (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Turning to the specific claim phrases, the Court affirms its construction that the term "A composition for supplementing dietary chromium and facilitating absorption of essential metals" means "A composition for supplementing dietary chromium and facilitating absorption of two or more metals necessary for the performance of vital biological functions in a body." First, in deciding whether "essential metals" means "two or more" essential metals, the Court applies the rule of thumb that "the plural form of a claim term should generally be defined simply as 'two or more' of the term's singular form." In re Fenofibrate Patent Litig., No. 11 MDL 2241, 2011 U.S. Dist. =CIS 95061, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 23, 2011). Moreover, claims 1 and 9 of the '889 patent expressly refer to "one or more essential metals," thus showing that the patentees knew how to claim "one or more" when they wanted to do so. See '889 patent, claims 1 & 9. Finally, the Court finds that the phrases "supplementing dietary chromium" and 6

7 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 7 of 13 "facilitating absorption" require no clarification or alternate formulation. Next, the Court reaffirms that "A method for supplementing dietary chromium in an individual" requires no construction. See Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 114 F.3d 1149, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Court construes the term "A method for reducing hyperglycemia and stabilizing serum glucose levels in an individual in need thereof" as "A method for reducing elevated blood sugar and decreasing blood sugar fluctuations in an individual with a perceived need to reduce elevated blood sugar and to decrease blood sugar fluctuations." The Court agrees with JDS that it is inappropriate to import limitations from one embodiment in the specification into more general claim language. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at The Court also finds that Pfizer's multiple attempts to limit the asserted patents to treatment of diabetes by importing language from the '623, '624, and '156 patents and by using the prior litigation and prosecution history of those patents are inappropriate, particularly because the patents are not asserted in this case and are only incorporated by reference into the background section of the '772 family of patents to describe the prior art. Finally, to avoid confusion and to be precise, the Court substitutes the complete description of the goals of the method when construing the phrase "in need thereof." 7

8 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 8 of 13 Next, the Court finds that the term "said effective amount" means "the dosage amount of chromium." While the term lacks an antecedent basis, this does not automatically mean that the claim is indefinite. In circumstances such as this one, in which "the scope of a claim would be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art,... the claim is not indefinite." Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Commin, 435 F.3d 1366, (Fed. Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the Court affirms its construction of the term "an effective daily hyperglycemia-reducing amount" as "a daily amount that is sufficient to reduce elevated blood sugar." The principal dispute regarding construction of this phrase is that Pfizer would add that the hyperglycemia that the invention reduces is "associated with diabetes." Pfizer admits that its reasoning for reading "associated with diabetes" into the claim is "[t]he same reasoning [as it offers] for the term 'reducing hyperglycemia.'" Def. Cl. Br., at 21. Therefore, for the same reasons described earlier in the context of the claim phrase "reducing hyperglycemia," the Court does not include the phrase "associated with diabetes" in its construction. In addition, the Court believes that the phrase "daily amount that is sufficient" captures the claim requirement that the amount be "effective," contrary to Pfizer's concerns. 8

9 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 9 of 13 For reasons already outlined when explaining its construction of other claim terms, the Court also affirms that the term "A method for facilitating absorption of one or more essential metals by an individual in need thereof" means "A method for facilitating absorption of one or more metals that are necessary for the performance of vital biological functions in a body by an individual with a perceived need for one or more such metals." Next, the term "A method for supplementing dietary chromium in an individual in need of enhanced dietary chromium" means "A method for providing additional chromium in an individual with a perceived need for additional dietary chromium." The parties' disputes with respect to this phrase in the '998 patent are the same as their disputes discussed earlier regarding the inclusion of "effectiveness," "specific perceived need," "chromium-deficient diet," and "associated with diabetes," and the Court' s reasoning on those disputes applies with equal force here. With respect to the remaining terms in this claim, the Court adopts the constructions on which the parties agree. Also for reasons discussed earlier in the context of other claim terms, the Court reaffirms that "A method for reducing hyperglycemia and stabilizing serum glucose levels in an individual in need of reduced and/or stabilized blood sugar" means "A method for reducing elevated blood sugar and decreasing blood sugar fluctuations 9

10 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 10 of 13 in an individual with a perceived need to reduce and/or stabilize blood sugar." Construction of the Re '480 patent's claims differs because of the patent's different prosecution history. In its request to reissue the '066 patent, the named applicant which the Court labels "JDS" for descriptive ease intended "to add a claim that [did] not require both a reduction in hyperglycemia and the stabilization of the serum glucose level in an individual... [and] to add claims that exclude [d] compositions having other active blood glucose serum ingredients." Declaration of Michael S. Heesters in Support of Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief, Mar. 8, 2013, Ex. C (U.S. Prosecution History for U.S. Patent No. RE39,480), at N21 Pfizer 8. While prosecuting the reissuance, JDS argued that the term "greater than additive effect" meant "an effect greater than one would expect from simply combining two ingredients." Id. at N21 Pfizer 223. After JDS s request was initially rejected based on the written description requirement, JDS commented: The Abstract of the instant application discloses "[a] method for treating Type II diabetes by administering... a combination of chromic tripicolinate and biotin" (emphasis supplied). Applicant submits that it is well-recognized that the primary focus of therapy for Type II diabetes is the reduction of hyperglycemia. As such, Applicant's teaching of the administration of chromium tripicolinate and biotin to reduce the requirement for insulin (which reduces hyperglycemia by increasing glucose uptake) makes clear that the 1 0

11 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 11 of 13 Applicant contemplated use of the present method for reducing hyperglycemia. Id. at N21 Pfizer JDS also met an indefiniteness rejection by noting that it "would be addressed by amending Claims 11 and 12 so that the preamble provides antecedent basis for the phrase 'reducing blood glucose levels,'" and that "[a]s amended, the recitation of 'reducing blood glucose levels' in the preamble of Claims 11 and 12 now provides antecedent basis for the phrase 'reducing blood glucose levels' in the body of the claims." Id. at N21 Pfizer Largely as a result of this prosecution history, the Court construes the term "A method for reducing hyperglycemia and stabilizing the level of serum glucose comprising administering to an individual in need thereof" in the '480 patent as "A method for reducing the elevated blood sugar associated with diabetes and decreasing blood sugar fluctuations comprising administering to an individual having a perceived need for such treatment." The preamble to claim 1 for the patent should be construed to associate "diabetes" with "hyperglycemia" and to use the word "treatment" in the construction of "need thereof." However, for the reasons discussed in the context of the '772 family of patents, the Court does not call the need "specific" or require that the method be "effective." Moreover, in the '480 patent, the term "wherein the amounts of chromic tripicolinate and biotin are selected together to provide 11

12 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 12 of 13 a greater than additive effect" means "wherein the amounts of chromium picolinate and biotin are selected together to provide a combined effect that is greater than the sum of the individual effects if administered separately." Also, the term "wherein the amounts of chromic tripicolinate and biotin are selected together to provide a synergistic effect in reducing blood glucose levels" means "wherein the amounts of chromium picolinate and biotin are selected to provide a combined effect that is greater than the sum of the individual effects if administered separately." The Court agrees with JDS that there is no need to construe "selected," and even if there were, the introduction of an "intentional choice" into the claim is based on at best weak extrinsic evidence. The Court, however, does agree with Pfizer that "provide a synergistic effect" and "greater than additive effect" should be construed similarly as "a combined effect that is greater than the sum of the individual effects if administered separately." Finally, for reasons outlined earlier in the context of other claims, the Court reaffirms that the term "A method of reducing blood glucose levels comprising administering to an individual in need thereof" in the '480 patent means "A method of reducing blood glucose levels comprising administering to an individual with a perceived need to reduce blood glucose levels." 12

13 Case 1:12-cv JSR Document 129 Filed 12/02/13 Page 13 of 13 For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby reaffirms the constructions in its May 21 Order. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York November AT

Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit

Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August 2005 Patent in Suit 1 Patent in Suit Claim 1 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction

More information

Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, Bid For Position,

Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, Bid For Position, Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al Doc. 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINL NORFOLK DIVISION BID FOR POSITION, LLC, v. Bid For Position, AOL, LLC, GOOGLE INC.,

More information

Frederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff.

Frederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind, Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, N.D. California. GOLDEN HOUR DATA SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. HEALTH SERVICES INTEGRATION, INC, Defendant. No. C 06-7477 SI July 22, 2008. Frederick S. Berretta, Boris Zelkind,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1452-N ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1452-N ORDER Case 3:13-cv-01452-N Document 69 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID 2121 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION SHIRE LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-1452-N

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No: 8:15-cv-472-T-36JSS ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No: 8:15-cv-472-T-36JSS ORDER Uretek Holdings, Inc. et al v. YD West Coast Homes, Inc. et al Doc. 64 URETEK HOLDINGS, INC., URETEK USA, INC. and BENEFIL WORLDWIDE OY, Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-1348-N ORDER Case 3:14-cv-01348-N Document 95 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 3285 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LAKESOUTH HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action

More information

MEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

MEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. MGM WELL SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MEGA LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. Feb. 10, 2006. Joseph Dean Lechtenberger, Howrey LLP, Houston, TX, for

More information

Plaintiff, Defendant.

Plaintiff, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- LUMOS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., -v- JEDMED INSTRUMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant. --------------------------------------

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., v. Plaintiffs, TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00033-RWS

More information

DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The University of Texas School of Law 16th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION October 27-28, 2011 Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle

More information

MICREL INC, Plaintiff. v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Michael R. Hsing, James C. Moyer, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants.

MICREL INC, Plaintiff. v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Michael R. Hsing, James C. Moyer, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants. United States District Court, N.D. California. MICREL INC, Plaintiff. v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Michael R. Hsing, James C. Moyer, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants. No. C 04-04770 JSW June 28,

More information

Case 1:09-cv REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:09-cv REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:09-cv-00057-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 Civil Action No. 09-cv-00057-REB-CBS SHOP*TV, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1414 BIAGRO WESTERN SALES, INC. and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, GROW MORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Fundamentals of Patent Litigation 2018

Fundamentals of Patent Litigation 2018 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1361 Fundamentals of Patent Litigation 2018 Co-Chairs Gary M. Hnath John J. Molenda, Ph.D. To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at (800)

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1548, -1627 CATALINA MARKETING INTERNATIONAL,

More information

IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING

IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING IN SEARCH OF A (NARROWER) MEANING RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION NIKA ALDRICH OSB Intellectual Property Section August 3, 2016 Nika Aldrich Of Counsel IP Litigation 503-796-2494 Direct

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE BELCHER PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE V. C.A. No. 17-775-LPS HOSPIRA, INC., Defendant. Sara E. Bussiere, Stephen B. Brauerman, BAY ARD,

More information

Case 1:17-cv LPS Document 114 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 9300

Case 1:17-cv LPS Document 114 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 9300 Case 1:17-cv-00189-LPS Document 114 Filed 10/09/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 9300 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, V. MESO SCALE DIAGNOSTICS,

More information

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. SHEN WEI (USA), INC., and Medline Industries, Inc, Plaintiffs. v. ANSELL HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, INC, Defendant. Shen Wei (USA), Inc., and Medline

More information

Case5:13-cv BLF Document140 Filed05/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case5:13-cv BLF Document140 Filed05/01/15 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case:-cv-00-BLF Document0 Filed0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO, INC., et al., Defendants. Case

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Defendant. : Defendants. :

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE. Defendant. : Defendants. : IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN-DEPTH TEST LLC, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 14-887-CFC MAXIM INTEGRATED, PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant. : IN-DEPTH TEST LLC, Plaintiff,.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON, INC. et al., Defendants. / TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES

More information

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY In Phillips v. AWH, the En Banc Federal Circuit Refocuses Claim Construction on a Patent s Intrinsic Evidence July 29, 2005 In perhaps its most anticipated decision since Markman

More information

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings

The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew

More information

David T. Movius, Michael L. Snyder, Ryan M. Fitzgerald, McDonald Hopkins, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff.

David T. Movius, Michael L. Snyder, Ryan M. Fitzgerald, McDonald Hopkins, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. VITA-MIX CORP, Plaintiff. v. BASIC HOLDINGS, INC., et al, Defendants. Sept. 10, 2007. Background: Patent assignee sued competitors, alleging infringement

More information

Case5:08-cv PSG Document514 Filed08/21/13 Page1 of 18

Case5:08-cv PSG Document514 Filed08/21/13 Page1 of 18 Case:0-cv-00-PSG Document Filed0// Page of 0 ACER, INC., ACER AMERICA CORPORATION and GATEWAY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LTD., PATRIOT SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, ALLIACENSE LTD., Defendants.

More information

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. LINCOLN FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff. v. TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. LINCOLN FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff. v. TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. LINCOLN FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS LLC, Plaintiff. v. TURBOCHEF TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:07-CV-1707-N Nov. 7, 2008. Scott W.

More information

Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker, Jones, McMackin, McClane, Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker, Jones, McMackin, McClane, Hall & Bates, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, W.D. Texas. HARBISON-FISCHER, INC., et. al, Plaintiffs. v. JWD INTERNATIONAL, et. al, Defendants. No. MO-07-CA-58-H Dec. 19, 2008. Daniel L. Bates, Geoffrey A. Mantooth, Decker,

More information

Alan M. Fisch, Kaye Scholer, LLP, Coke Morgan Stewart, David Laurent Cousineau, Jason F. Hoffman, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Alan M. Fisch, Kaye Scholer, LLP, Coke Morgan Stewart, David Laurent Cousineau, Jason F. Hoffman, Kaye Scholer LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, District of Columbia. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC, Plaintiff. v. Abdullah Ali BAHATTAB, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07-1771 (PLF)(AK) May 8, 2009. Alan M. Fisch, Kaye Scholer, LLP,

More information

Keith A. Rabenberg, Richard L. Brophy, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.

Keith A. Rabenberg, Richard L. Brophy, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. WORLD WIDE STATIONERY MANUFACTURING CO., LTD, Plaintiff. v. U.S. RING BINDER, L.P, Defendant. No. 4:07-CV-1947 (CEJ) March 31, 2009. Keith

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant. 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., vs. AMERICAN TECHNICAL CERAMICS CORP., Plaintiff, Defendant. CASE NO. 1-CV-01-H (BGS) CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1069 CHRISTIAN J. JANSEN, JR., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., Defendant-Appellee. John C. McNett, Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton, Moriarty

More information

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION. Washington, D.C.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION. Washington, D.C. UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. In the Matter of CERTAIN AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINES AND POINT OF SALE DEVICES AND ASSOCIATED SOFTWARE THEREOF ORDER 15: CONSTRUING THE TERMS

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system

More information

ORDER RULING ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS

ORDER RULING ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS United States District Court, C.D. California. DEALERTRACK, INC, Plaintiff. v. David L. HUBER, Finance Express LLC, and John Doe Dealers, Defendants. Dealertrack, Inc, Plaintiff. v. Routeone LLC, David

More information

Phillips v. AWH Corporation Revisiting the Rules of Claim Construction: Still No Magic Formula

Phillips v. AWH Corporation Revisiting the Rules of Claim Construction: Still No Magic Formula Phillips v. AWH Corporation Revisiting the Rules of Claim Construction: Still No Magic Formula july 13, 2005 Overview Patent infringement cases worth tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars often

More information

IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Spring 2013 Prof. Morris April 19, 2013 rev 0

IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Spring 2013 Prof. Morris April 19, 2013 rev 0 KRUSE v CATERPILLAR - Summmary Judgment - 1 IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Spring 2013 Prof. Morris April 19, 2013 rev 0 KRUSE v. CATERPILLAR - SUMMARY JUDGMENT and CLAIM CONSTRUCTION (to

More information

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendants. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. CCC INFORMATION SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC, Defendants. March 23, 2006. David Aaron Nelson, Israel Mayergoyz,

More information

Designing Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus

Designing Around Valid U.S. Patents Course Syllabus Chapter 1: COOKBOOK PROCEDURE AND BLUEPRINT FOR DESIGNING AROUND : AVOIDING LITERAL INFRINGEMENT Literal Infringement Generally Claim Construction Under Markman 1. Claim Interpretation Before Markman 2.

More information

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION The University of Texas School of Law 20th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 5-6, 2015 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland

More information

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. WYETH, Plaintiff. v. SANDOZ, INC, Defendant. No. 5:07-CV-234-D. July 3, 2008.

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. WYETH, Plaintiff. v. SANDOZ, INC, Defendant. No. 5:07-CV-234-D. July 3, 2008. United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division. WYETH, Plaintiff. v. SANDOZ, INC, Defendant. No. 5:07-CV-234-D July 3, 2008. Background: Patentee brought infringement action against

More information

Proceedings: Order Construing Claims 37, 38, 45, and 69 of the '444 Patent

Proceedings: Order Construing Claims 37, 38, 45, and 69 of the '444 Patent United States District Court, C.D. California. ORMCO CORP, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC. No. SACV 03-16 CAS (ANx) Oct. 3, 2008. Richard Marschall, David DeBruin, for Plaintiffs. Heidi Kim, Anne Rogaski, for

More information

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PanOptis Patent Management, LLC et al v. BlackBerry Limited et al Doc. 98 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., v.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IN RE: BODY SCIENCE LLC ) MDL No. 1:12-md-2375-FDS PATENT LITIGATION ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IN RE: BODY SCIENCE LLC ) MDL No. 1:12-md-2375-FDS PATENT LITIGATION ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ) IN RE: BODY SCIENCE LLC ) MDL No. 1:12-md-2375-FDS PATENT LITIGATION ) ) ) SAYLOR, J. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION This

More information

J Thad Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, James Michael Woods, Thomas Dunham, Howrey LLP, Washington, DC, for Sun Microsystems, Inc.

J Thad Heartfield, The Heartfield Law Firm, Beaumont, TX, James Michael Woods, Thomas Dunham, Howrey LLP, Washington, DC, for Sun Microsystems, Inc. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. ABSTRAX, INC, v. DELL, INC., v. Nos. 2:07-cv-221 (DF-CE), 2:07-cv-333 (DF-CE) Oct. 31, 2008. Elizabeth L. Derieux, Nancy Claire Abernathy, Sidney

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1539 PREDICATE LOGIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRIBUTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Christopher S. Marchese, Fish & Richardson

More information

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND LEGAL STANDARD

ORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND LEGAL STANDARD United States District Court, N.D. California. LIFESCAN, INC, Plaintiff. v. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C 04-3653 SI Sept. 11, 2007. David Eiseman, Melissa J. Baily, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart

More information

Baffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation

Baffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall 2004 Article 9 10-1-2004 Baffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation Daniel S.

More information

Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. et al Doc. 69. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division

Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. et al Doc. 69. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. et al Doc. 69 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division FILED FEB -5 2016 Vir2us, Inc., Cl ERK, U S. DISTRICT COURT N< -FOLK.

More information

Elana Sabovic Matt, Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff.

Elana Sabovic Matt, Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma. TERAGREN, LLC, a Washington limited liability company, Plaintiff. v. SMITH & FONG COMPANY, a California corporation, Defendant. No. C07-5612RBL

More information

United States District Court, S.D. California.

United States District Court, S.D. California. United States District Court, S.D. California. NESSCAP CO., LTD, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant. v. MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC, Defendant/Counter-Claimant. Maxwell Technologies, Inc, Plaintiff. v. Nesscap,

More information

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. MICROTHIN.COM, INC, Plaintiff. v. SILICONEZONE USA, LLC, Defendant. May 6, 2009.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. MICROTHIN.COM, INC, Plaintiff. v. SILICONEZONE USA, LLC, Defendant. May 6, 2009. United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. MICROTHIN.COM, INC, Plaintiff. v. SILICONEZONE USA, LLC, Defendant. May 6, 2009. Background: Patent owner filed action against competitor

More information

James Espy Dallner, Michael G. Martin, Lathrop & Gage, LC, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

James Espy Dallner, Michael G. Martin, Lathrop & Gage, LC, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, D. Colorado. ALCOHOL MONITORING SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. ACTSOFT, INC., Ohio House Monitoring Systems, Inc., and U.S. Home Detention Systems and Equipment, Inc, Defendants.

More information

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Fundamental Innovation Systems International LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al Doc. 146 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FUNDAMENTAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS

More information

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION TO CHEMICAL PATENT PRACTICE: SETTING THE STAGE FOR DISCUSSING STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING RISK OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND ENHANCING CHANCES OF INFRINGEMENT,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al Doc. 134 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT,COURT. FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RECKITT BENCKISER LLC, Plaintiff, v. C.A. No. 14-1203-LPS AUROBINDOPHARMA

More information

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC, Plaintiff. v. MODERN MUZZLELOADING, INC, Defendant. Feb. 8, 1999.

United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC, Plaintiff. v. MODERN MUZZLELOADING, INC, Defendant. Feb. 8, 1999. United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina. REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY, INC, Plaintiff. v. MODERN MUZZLELOADING, INC, Defendant. Feb. 8, 1999. OSTEEN, District J. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes

More information

Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015

Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015 Does Teva Matter? Edward R. Reines December 10, 2015 Pre-Teva: Federal Circuit En Banc Decisions Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) Because claim construction is a

More information

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus

Patent Resources Group. Chemical Patent Practice. Course Syllabus Patent Resources Group Chemical Patent Practice Course Syllabus I. INTRODUCTION II. USER GUIDE: Overview of America Invents Act Changes with Respect to Prior Art III. DRAFTING CHEMICAL CLAIMS AND SPECIFICATION

More information

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division. ALOFT MEDIA, LLC, Plaintiff. v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., and Microsoft Corporation, Defendants. Civil Action No. 6:07-cv-355 July 29, 2008. Background:

More information

A. Neal Seth, Lawrence M. Sung, Teresa Summers, and Alexander B. Owczarczak, WILEY REIN LLP, Washington, DC

A. Neal Seth, Lawrence M. Sung, Teresa Summers, and Alexander B. Owczarczak, WILEY REIN LLP, Washington, DC IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE HORATIO WASHINGTON DEPOT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, Plaintiff, C.A.NO. 17-1086-LPS TOLMAR, INC., TOLMAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., and TOLMAR THERAPEUTICS,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1262 BALDWIN GRAPHIC SYSTEMS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, SIEBERT, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Thomas B. Kenworthy, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1062 MBO LABORATORIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BECTON, DICKINSON & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. John M. Skenyon, Fish & Richardson P.C.,

More information

Order RE: Claim Construction

Order RE: Claim Construction United States District Court, C.D. California. In re KATZ INTERACTIVE CALL PROCESSING PATENT LITIGATION. This document relates to, This document relates to:. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing L, Ronald

More information

Case 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18

Case 1:13-cv JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 --------------------- ----- Case 1:13-cv-02027-JSR Document 252 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------- x COGNEX CORPORATION;

More information

Overview. Chapter 1. 1:1 Introduction

Overview. Chapter 1. 1:1 Introduction Chapter 1 Overview 1:1 Introduction 1:2 The Markman Decisions 1:3 Summary of Post-Markman Law 1:3.1 Certainty Versus Uncertainty 1:3.2 Indefiniteness 1:3.3 Timing 1:3.4 Types of Presentations 1:3.5 Use

More information

Background: Suit was brought alleging infringement of patent for a product described in the title of the patent as a "center-filled supplement gum.

Background: Suit was brought alleging infringement of patent for a product described in the title of the patent as a center-filled supplement gum. United States District Court, D. Colorado. Jack BARRECA, Plaintiff. v. SOUTH BEACH BEVERAGE CO., INC., Lotte USA, and 7-Eleven, Inc, Defendants. No. CIV.A.02F2303PAC June 16, 2004. Background: Suit was

More information

OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY

OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY Mark P. Levy, Intellectual Property Practice Group Leader, Thompson Hine LLP., Dayton, Ohio I. The name of the game is the claim. As Judge Rich, one of

More information

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Vacating February 6, 2009 Claim Construction Order [107]; Order on New Claim Construction;

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order Vacating February 6, 2009 Claim Construction Order [107]; Order on New Claim Construction; United States District Court, C.D. California. REMOTEMDX, INC, v. SATELLITE TRACKING OF PEOPLE, LLC. No. CV 08-2899 ODW(FMOx) April 29, 2009. Gary M. Anderson, Fulwider Patton, Los Angeles, CA, for Remotemdx,

More information

Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions

Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions Claim Construction Is Ultimately A Question Of Law But May Involve Underlying Factual Questions - Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice (2014) doi: 10.1093/jiplp/jpu162 Author(s): Charles R.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY WARNER CHILCOTT COMPANY, LLC, and WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC, Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 11-5989 (FSH)(JBC) v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS,

More information

Claim Construction. Larami Super Soaker

Claim Construction. Larami Super Soaker Claim Construction Validity Claim Construction Comparison of: claimed invention and accused device Claim Construction Tank thereon TTMP Gun Larami Super Soaker A toy comprising an elongated housing [case]

More information

THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REDUCING THE NEED FOR MARKMAN DETERMINATIONS ROBERT H. RESIS, ESQ. ABSTRACT The uncertainty as to whether claim interpretation decisions will survive

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIFE360, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1732 Appeal from the United States District

More information

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. BIAX CORPORATION, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. No. 2:06-CV-364. July 18, 2008.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. BIAX CORPORATION, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. No. 2:06-CV-364. July 18, 2008. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. BIAX CORPORATION, v. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. No. 2:06-CV-364 July 18, 2008. Danny Lloyd Williams, Jaison Chorikavumkal John, Ruben Singh Bains,

More information

Comments on: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications, 78 Fed. Reg (January 15, 2013)

Comments on: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications, 78 Fed. Reg (January 15, 2013) The Honorable Teresa Stanek Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office

More information

Case 8:13-cv VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 8:13-cv VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Case 8:13-cv-02240-VMC-MAP Document 91 Filed 02/09/15 Page 1 of 11 PageID 2201 STONEEAGLE SERVICES, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No. 8:13-cv-2240-T-33MAP

More information

Case 1:06-cv JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11. x : : : : : : : : : x. In this action, plaintiff New York University ( NYU ) alleges

Case 1:06-cv JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11. x : : : : : : : : : x. In this action, plaintiff New York University ( NYU ) alleges Case 106-cv-05274-JSR Document 69 Filed 07/16/2007 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------ NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, AUTODESK, INC., Plaintiff,

More information

Vacated in part; claims construed; previous motion for summary judgment of non-infringement granted.

Vacated in part; claims construed; previous motion for summary judgment of non-infringement granted. United States District Court, District of Columbia. MICHILIN PROSPERITY CO, Plaintiff. v. FELLOWES MANUFACTURING CO, Defendant. Civil Action No. 04-1025(RWR)(JMF) Aug. 30, 2006. Background: Patentee filed

More information

Case3:10-cv JW Document81 Filed06/12/12 Page1 of 23 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Case3:10-cv JW Document81 Filed06/12/12 Page1 of 23 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Case:-cv-00-JW Document Filed0// Page of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION Acer, Inc., Plaintiff, NO. C 0-00 JW NO. C 0-00 JW NO. C 0-0

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RUCKUS WIRELESS, INC., CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellees v. INNOVATIVE WIRELESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellant 2015-1425, 2015-1438 Appeals

More information

90 F.3d USLW 2124, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1573 VITRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCEPTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No

90 F.3d USLW 2124, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1573 VITRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCEPTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No 90 F.3d 1576 65 USLW 2124, 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1573 VITRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCEPTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 96-1058. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. July 25,

More information

John C McNett, Woodard Emhardt Naughton Moriarty & McNett, Indianapolis, IN, for plaintiff.

John C McNett, Woodard Emhardt Naughton Moriarty & McNett, Indianapolis, IN, for plaintiff. United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Christian J. JANSEN, Jr, Plaintiff. v. REXALL SUNDOWN, INC, Defendant. No. IP00-1495-C-T/G Sept. 25, 2002. John C McNett, Woodard Emhardt

More information

Guy E. Matthews, Bruce R. Coulombe, Robert M. Bowick, Jr, The Matthews Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff.

Guy E. Matthews, Bruce R. Coulombe, Robert M. Bowick, Jr, The Matthews Firm, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff. United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. James P LOGAN, Jr, Plaintiff. v. SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC., et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. H-05-766 March 31, 2009. Guy E. Matthews, Bruce

More information

Edwin H. Taylor, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Sunnyvale, CA, Joseph R. Bond, Heber City, UT, for

Edwin H. Taylor, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Sunnyvale, CA, Joseph R. Bond, Heber City, UT, for United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. DIGITAL PERSONA, INC.; Microsoft Corporation; and John Does 1-20, Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-72

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit JOHN LARRY SANDERS AND SPECIALTY FERTILIZER PRODUCTS, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE MOSAIC COMPANY,

More information

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. RIDDELL, INC, Plaintiff. v. SCHUTT SPORTS, INC, Defendants. No. 08-cv-711-bbc. July 10, 2009.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. RIDDELL, INC, Plaintiff. v. SCHUTT SPORTS, INC, Defendants. No. 08-cv-711-bbc. July 10, 2009. United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. RIDDELL, INC, Plaintiff. v. SCHUTT SPORTS, INC, Defendants. No. 08-cv-711-bbc July 10, 2009. Christopher G. Hanewicz, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.

More information

Case 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824

Case 4:12-cv O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 Case 4:12-cv-00546-O Document 184 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID 4824 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION WILLIAMS-PYRO, INC., v. Plaintiff, WARREN

More information

Case 1:15-cv JSR Document 76 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 11

Case 1:15-cv JSR Document 76 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 11 Case 1:15-cv-09796-JSR Document 76 Filed 06/07/16 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------x SPENCER MEYER, individually and on behalf

More information

Volume One Issue Five February In This Issue: Simple Claim Language Must Be Construed If There

Volume One Issue Five February In This Issue: Simple Claim Language Must Be Construed If There Federal Circuit Review Claim Construction Volume One Issue Five February 2009 In This Issue: g Simple Claim Language Must Be Construed If There Is A Fundamental Dispute Over The Scope g Decisions In Which

More information

Norbert Stahl, Stahl Law Firm, San Carlos, CA, Ralph B Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink and Slavens, San Diego, CA, for Defendants.

Norbert Stahl, Stahl Law Firm, San Carlos, CA, Ralph B Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink and Slavens, San Diego, CA, for Defendants. United States District Court, S.D. California. I-FLOW CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff. v. APEX MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation, et al, Defendants. and All Related Counterclaim,

More information

G. A. Flores, Jr., Law Offices of G. A. Flores, Jr., Ted D. Lee, Gunn & Lee, PC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs.

G. A. Flores, Jr., Law Offices of G. A. Flores, Jr., Ted D. Lee, Gunn & Lee, PC, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiffs. United States District Court, W.D. Texas, San Antonio Division. Gilbert R. SADA, and Victor L. Hernandez, Plaintiffs. v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. Civil Action No. SA-04-CA-541-OG

More information

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota. United States District Court, D. Minnesota. FLOE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and Wayne G. Floe, Plaintiffs. v. NEWMANS' MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED, Defendant. and Newmans' Manufacturing Incorporated, Counter-Claimant.

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : ORTHO-MCNEIL : PHARMACEUTICAL, INC., : : Plaintiff and : Counterclaim Defendant, : CIVIL ACTION NO.: 02-5707 (JCL) : v. : : KALI LABORATORIES, INC.,

More information

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant. Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Slomin's, Inc. Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION JOAO CONTROL AND MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC., SLOMIN

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION Fractus, S.A. v. ZTE Corporation et al Doc. 93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FRACTUS, S.A., v. Plaintiff, ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC., ZTE

More information

2:12-cv NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:12-cv NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:12-cv-12276-NGE-MJH Doc # 99 Filed 12/03/13 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 4401 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JOSEPH ROBERT MARCHESE d/b/a DIGITAL SECURITY SYSTEMS LLC,

More information

Case 1:08-cv ENV -RLM Document 128 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 5. December 10, 2009

Case 1:08-cv ENV -RLM Document 128 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 5. December 10, 2009 Case 1:08-cv-04446-ENV -RLM Document 128 Filed 12/10/09 Page 1 of 5 Ronald D. Coleman Partner rcoleman@goetzfitz.com BY ECF United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1446 CYTOLOGIX CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, VENTANA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Jack R. Pirozzolo, Willcox, Pirozzolo &

More information