all - Opinion Summaries

APOTEX USA, INC. v MERCK & CO., INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Patent invalidation under 35 USC 102(g) only requires proof that the prior invention was made in the United States, and evidence of lack of...

CRATER CORP. v LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
28 USC 498(a) is not jurisdictional, but provides an affirmative defense for private parties charged with patent infringement, so the district court...

LANS v DIGITAL EQUIP. CORP.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
Where inventor assigned rights in a patent to his wholly owned corporation for tax purposes, the inventor himself does not have standing to prosecute...

MYCOGEN PLANT SCIENCE, INC. v MONSANTO CO.

Intellectual Property, Patent
The fact that a process generally has a uniform result is not enough to constitute conception for purposes of challenging validity under 35 USC 102(g)...

BUDDE v. HARLEY-DAVIDSON, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
The claim limitation "electronic sensing means for determining when the ignition system of the engine delivers an electronic pulse to fire each spark...

INAMED CORP. v. KUZMAK

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
While a cease-and-desist letter alone is not sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction in a patent case, telephone calls and letters...

BIOTEC BIOLOGISCHE NATURVERPACKUNGEN GMBH & CO. KG v. BIOCORP, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
The district court has no duty to search through lengthy technologic documents for possible evidence, and an expert's bare assertion that a patent is...

TEGAL CORP. v. TOKYO ELECTRON CO., LTD.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
Injunctive relief against a patent infringer does not reach infringer's corporate affiliates, and merely permitting infringement does not amount to...

MCCOOK METALS LLC v. ALCOA, INC.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
Where jurisdiction in an action is based in part on 28 USC 1338, which confers jurisdiction upon district courts in patent matters, review of an...

SHOCKLEY v. EXCALIBUR TOOL & EQUIPMENT CO., INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
New Rule 1.175, at 37 CFR 1.175, applies to patent reissue applications pending at the time the new rule became effective.