Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

General Electric Sues Mitsubishi Over Wind Energy Patents

GE asserts that the Mitsubishi 2.4MW wind turbine is an example of an infringing product. The 2.4 MW wind turbine is a large-size wind turbine with a 2.4 megawatt rated output. According to the Mitsubishi website, the MWT92/2.4 and MWT95/2.4 (versions of the 2.4MW wind turbine) “are strategically targeted at the global market for large-scale wind turbine generators. MHI developed the MWT92/2.4 proprietarily and, since January 2006, has verified its performance and reliability through testing…”

CAFC: Reliance on Unrelated Licenses Doom Damage Award

the patented technology involved screen recognition and terminal emulation processes to download a screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local personal computer (PC). Basically, the patented technology facilitated the ability of the PC to operate like earlier “dumb terminals” in recognizing information sent by a mainframe connected to the PC. The alleged infringing terminal emulator program called “NewLook” was developed in Australia (by Looksoftware Proprietary Limited) but was sold by Lansa, Inc. (Lansa) in the U.S.

How Private Investigators Help Patent Litigators

Patent litigation often turns on obscure and long-buried facts, and some private investigative firms are developing expertise that can help patent counsel – on both the defendant and plaintiff sides – find information to support and even shape litigation strategy. Below are five examples of common problems that patent counsel often face in contemplating, bringing or defending lawsuits, and how…

Court Stays Ruling Pending Supreme Decision in Bilski

On January 21, 2010, the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued a ruling in Big Baboon, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al, staying further consideration on the motion for summary judgment for invalidity until such time that the United States Supreme Court issues its much anticipated decision in Bilski v. Kappos. This is exactly what I have been suggesting (see Offering Help), and it has amazed me that other district courts and the United States Patent Office are plowing ahead and making Bilski rulings.

Toyota Wins Summary Judgment in Hybrid Patent Litigation

This case comes to light courtesy of the Docket Report daily e-mail newsletter. On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the United States Federal District Court for the Middle District of Florida, per Magistrate Pizzo, granted summary judgment against Solomon Technologies, Inc. and in favor of Toyota Motor Corporation relating to claims of infringement relative to U.S. Patent No. 5,067,932. The case…

Divisional of Divisional Reaches Safe Harbor of 35 U.S.C § 121

Some may recall my “dissertation” on the case of Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd. See CAFC: A Divisional By Any Other Name Is Not a Divisional .  In Amgen, the Federal Circuit made it clear that you had better characterize an application as a “divisional” if you wanted the benefit of the “safe harbor” provided by 35 U.S.C…

Patent Litigation Stayed Before PTO Grants Reexam Request

Just last week I wrote an article about district courts being increasingly reluctant to order a stay of a pending patent infringement litigation even when the United States Patent Office has granted reexamination. To quote the words of Lee Corso of ESPN College Football fame, “not so fast my friend!” Courtesy of the Docket Report daily patent litigation newsletter, I…

Patent War Declared: Kodak Sues Apple Over iPhone & Mac

In news that has already spread across the Internet like a wildfire, Eastman Kodak Company has sued Apple, Inc., alleging that Apple infringes numerous Kodak patents associated with the iPhone, iPod Touch and various Mac computers. News reports also indicate that Kodak has sued Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry. As yet I have not seen a copy…

Supreme Court Won’t Review CAFC Ruling that 35 USC § 271(f) Doesn’t Apply to Patented Processes

You may recall that I wrote back in September of last year on the case of Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. See CAFC Says “Patented Invention” Does Not Include Methods .  In Cardiac Pacemakers, all but one member of the en banc Federal Circuit ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) doesn’t apply to patented processes.  Judge Newman…

Courts Reluctant to Stay Patent Litigation Pending Reexam

Over the last several months large law firms have opened Reexamination Practice Groups and even starting blogs dedicated solely or in part to exploring the issues presented by Reexamination.  And as I am writing, PLI is presently hosting day 1 of a two day Reexamination and Reissue program at its San Francisco headquarters. The program titled Reissue and Reexamination Strategies…

A Better Mouse Trap: Patents and the Road to Riches

To paraphrase the famous quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson, if you build a better mouse-trap the world will make a path to your door. Inventors and entrepreneurs frequently take this quote all too literally, thinking that if they make a better product theirs will sell and make them rich beyond their wildest dreams. There are, of course, many different reasons…

Paris Hilton Sued for Design Patent Infringement

What do Paris Hilton and patent law have in common? Well, virtually nothing really, or at least not until a couple days before Christmas at least. Yes, as hard as it may seem to believe Paris Hilton finds herself connected by the foot to patent law, having been alleged to infringe a design patent owned by Brooke Hollow, Inc., which…

Abbott Labs Ordered to Pay $175 Million Pre-judgment Interest

What’s $175,641,661 among friends?  Apparently not much, at least insofar as news media are concerned, although it is admittedly unfair to use the word “friends” in the same sentence as $175,641,661.  In reality, it is hard to characterize Abbott Laboratories as being a “friend” of who they must pay that exorbitant sum to, but I guess is does certainly pale…

CAFC Puts Coal in Microsoft’s Stocking by Affirming $240 Million Damage Award and Permanent Injunction

Microsoft has lived a charmed life in the “mega award” world of patent infringement litigation.  For example, Microsoft recently dodged a $357 million jury award bullet in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. But it now looks like Microsoft’s luck finally ran out.  In i4i Limited Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., Microsoft was tagged with:  (1) a jury award of $200…

i4i Victorious at CAFC, Microsoft Word Enjoined Jan. 11, 2010

Earlier today, the Federal Circuit issued its decision giving i4i an early Christmas present and delivered a big fat lump of coal to Microsoft. The Federal Circuit has upheld Judge Davis’ decision with one small exception. The Federal Circuit found the 60 day period in which the injunction was to become effective too short, instead preferring to give Microsoft 5 months to comply with the permanent injunction, which means that the permanent injunction will go into effect on January 11, 2010.