Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Clearwater attorney) Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.

Brescia v. Angelin

(Cal. App., Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action involving trade secrets, trial court’s dismissal is reversed where Code of Civil Procedure section 2019.210 does not require in every case that a trade secret claimant explain how the alleged trade secret differs from matters already known to skilled persons in the field. An explanation is required only when the details provided by the claimant to identify the secret are inadequate to permit the defendant to learn the boundaries of the secret and investigate defenses, or to permit the court to understand the designation and fashion discovery.

ICU Medical, Inc. v. Alaris Medical Sys., Inc.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving medical technology, judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) district court correctly construed the disputed “spike” term and held noninfringement with respect to the asserted claims; 2) the asserted claims of the patents are invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112; and 3) the award of attorney’s fees and Rule 11 sanctions were not an abuse of discretion.

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.

clearwater attorney

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.