More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action related to a drug for the treatment and prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis, the district court’s order in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where the court did not abuse its discretion in extending a statutory thirty-month stay preventing the FDA from approving defendant’s new drug application due to defendant’s discovery violations.
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent dispute concerning power inverter circuitry for laptop computers, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an expert under the Federal Rules as it was confronted by an unusually complex case and starkly conflicting expert testimony; and 2) there was no error in the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness as there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.
lawyer in tampa
More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure, Property Law & Real Estate) In an action by the U.S. to quiet title to land, the District Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to stay is affirmed, where the land was not “public land” for which a patent could be issued. The District Court’s decision that Defendants possessed use rights in the land is reversed, where the deeds to the land did not confer such rights.
Florida Attorney
More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Construction, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Property Law & Real Estate) In a copyright infringement action related to designs for modular homes, judgment for Defendants is affirmed where the District Court did not clearly err in finding that Defendants, as a factual matter, did not copy Plaintiffs’ work.
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent dispute concerning power inverter circuitry for laptop computers, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an expert under the Federal Rules as it was confronted by an unusually complex case and starkly conflicting expert testimony; and 2) there was no error in the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness as there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.
tampa florida lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 12, 2009 12:40 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe