The Federal Circuit month at Month at a Glance DISCLAIMER IN - PDF document

A P R I L 2 0 0 1 Last The Federal Circuit month at Month at a Glance DISCLAIMER IN SPECIFICATION RESTRICTS STATE’S ABILITY TO TAKE DISCIPLINARY CLAIM SCOPE ACTION AGAINST PATENT ATTORNEY IS NOT Statements in specification criticizing and distin- PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW guishing prior art embodiments prevent claim Court dismisses patent attorney’s complaint scope broad enough to cover such embodiments seeking declaratory judgment that federal law and prevent application of DOE. SciMed Life Sys., preempts New York State Grievance Committee’s Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. , authority to bring disciplinary action against him. No. 99-1499 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2001) . . . . . . . .1 Kroll v. Finnerty , No. 00-1176 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 HOPE OF SUCCESS IS INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH CONCEPTION WILLFULNESS AND OPINIONS OF COUNSEL Priority not awarded given absence of reasonable Gustafson did not hold, as a matter of law, that a expectation that material limitations of interference party that continues its accused infringing activity count will be met. Hitzeman v. Rutter , No. 99-1604 after a patentee files suit cannot be guilty of willful (Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 infringement as long as that party presents a non- frivolous defense to infringement. Crystal PRIOR INVENTION LEAVES INSECTICIDAL GENE Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelecs. Int’l, PATENT INVALID Inc. , No. 99-1558 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 7, 2001) . . . . .7 That which infringes a patent later in time, antici- pates it earlier in time. Accused infringer conceived Insituform Techs., Inc. v. Cat Contracting, Inc., and reduced to practice before patentee. No. 99-1584 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2001) (non- Mycogen Plant Sci., Inc. v. Monsanto Co. , precedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 No. 00-1001 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2001) . . . . . . . .2 Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Gensia Labs., Inc. , REDUCTION TO PRACTICE CANNOT BE No. 00-1166 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 23, 2001) (non- ESTABLISHED NUNC PRO TUNC precedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Washington, DC First-to-conceive inventor not able to show that 202-408-4000 reduction to practice by second inventor inured In re Jones , No. 00-1414 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 6, to first to conceive inventor’s benefit. Cooper v. 2001) (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . .9 Goldfarb , No. 00-1046 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, Palo Alto 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Medical Device Techs., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 650-849-6600 No. 00-1378 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2001) (non- PATENTEE OF GOLF CLUB PATENTS MAY WANT precedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 A “MULLIGAN” Claims are not infringed, and several are invalid. Senior Techs., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc. , No. 00-1089 Atlanta 404-653-6400 Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf Co. , (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2001) (nonprecedential No. 99-1234 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2001) . . . . . . . .4 decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 PATENTEE CANNOT “CASH IN” ON COMPUTER Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry. Prods., Inc. , No. Tokyo CACHING PATENT 00-1161 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 27, 2001) (non- 011-813-3431-6943 The role of claim construction is neither to limit nor precedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 to broaden the claims, but to define, as a matter of law, the invention that has been patented. Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co. , No. 00-1228 Brussels Networld, LLC v. Centraal Corp. , No. 99-1257 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12, 2001) (nonprecedential deci- 011-322-646-0353 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 sion) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 INTEL IS NOT LICENSED UNDER INTERGRAPH’S Maltezos v. AT&T Corp. , No. 00-1529 (Fed. Cir. PATENTS Mar. 8, 2001) (nonprecedential decision) . . . . .14 The order of proceedings in executing license agreements in the same day does not give Polymer Indus. Prods. Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, company that may have momentarily possessed Inc. , No. 00-1271 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2001) EDITED BY VINCE KOVALICK patents until the next document was signed the (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 right to encumber those patents. Intergraph Corp. v. Intel Corp. , No. 00-1048 (Fed. Cir. Lencco Racing Co. v. Jolliffe , No. 00-1221 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Mar. 26, 2001) (nonprecedential decision) . . . .14 This publication brings you a synopsis of patent cases decided last month by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on slip opinions received from the court. You can review and download the full text of each opinion by visiting our website at www.finnegan.com