Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Clearwater attorney) TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving automated toll collection systems, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the sales of the toll collection systems installed by defendant were authorized by an earlier settlement agreement involving the plaintiff such that plaintiff’s patent rights were exhausted as to those systems; 2) the court did not err in excluding parol evidence of the parties’ intent at the time they entered into the settlement agreement as the settlement agreement is unambiguous, final, and exclusive; 3) plaintiff’s rights to the ’946 patent were exhausted by third party Mark IV’s authorized sales under an implied license to practice that patent by virtue of legal estoppel.

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inv. Dist., LLC

(U.S. 10th Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a Lanham Act action based on Defendant’s sale of Plaintiff’s products without Plaintiff’s serial number label, a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff is affirmed, where the “first sale” doctrine did not apply because Defendant was doing more than simply stocking, displaying and reselling Plaintiff’s products.

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving intravascular stents, plaintiff’s appeals are denied where: 1) plaintiff’s stent infringed on defendant’s patent as the court properly constructed the language of the claim and properly concluded that plaintiff’s stent met the “corners” limitation of the patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that defendant’s patent was not obvious. Defendant’s appeals are denied in all respects save one where: 1) the two monographs prepared by the inventor of plaintiff’s ’762 patent were not prior art printed publications; 2) plaintiff’s ’762 stent patent does not anticipate its ’406 stent patent and is thus valid; 3) different stents created by defendant infringe on both of plaintiff’s stent patents under various limitations of the claims in the patents; and 4) court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s infringement claims against one of defendant’s stents without prejudice instead of with prejudice.

St Petersburg Lawyer

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.