More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a consolidated case involving four civil actions brought by plaintiff under 35 U.S.C. section 145 (2000) regarding plaintiff’s twelve patent applications, decision in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly interpreted 37 C.F.R. section 1.192(c)(7); and 2) the district court’s remand order did not require defendant-board to consider arguments waived by plaintiff.
Wilchombe v. Teevee Toons, Inc.
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement case involving the rap song “The Weedman” which appears on a Lil John album “Kings of Crunk”, dismissal of plaintiff-musician’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is affirmed where: 1) the amended complaint failed to allege a fiduciary relationship and thus failed to state a claim for relief; and 2) plaintiff could not the grant of summary judgment based on arguments raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration.
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a drug-eluting expandable stent with a coating that has a non-thrombogenic surface, denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following a jury verdict of infringement of a patent claim is reversed where the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to hold the patent at issue to have been obvious.
Sundance, Inc. v. Demonte Fabricating Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action, grant of plaintiff’s motion judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) finding the patent was not invalid is reversed where: 1) the district court’s denial of a motion in limine to exclude the testimony of witness, not skilled in the pertinent art, was an abuse of discretion; and 2) as a matter of law, claim 1 of the patent was invalid for obviousness.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Commercial Law, Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit against a brand-name and a generic drug manufacturer alleging restraint-of-trade and monopolization of the market for a blood pressure medication, judgment for defendants is affirmed in part over plaintiff’s evidentiary challenges, but reversed in part where plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on its claim that defendant had violated the Sherman Act by enforcing a patent obtained through fraud.
St Petersburg Attorney