Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co. 590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GAJARSA, Michel & Friedman)
MAJOR ISSUES: Interference between patent and application; interpretation of claim copied by an applicant from a patent; written description support; PTO Rule 41.200(b) contrary to judicial authority Read CPLRG™ 0017
F.3d –, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27648 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (DYK & Bryson; CLEVENGER, dissenting)
MAJOR ISSUES: Design patents; ordinary observer standard for anticipation and obviousness; minor variations not avoiding anticipation; design as a whole; features visible any time during product’s life
F.3d—-, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27330 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (RADER, Archer & Gajarsa)
MAJOR ISSUES: Summary judgment of noninfringement
Expert declaration by patent owner–conclusory statements not sufficient to survive summary judgment motion
Expert conclusory statements on infringement–failure to link to particular structures in accused device
Means-plus-function limitations
587 F.3d 1375, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26568 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (MICHEL & Prost; NEWMAN, dissenting)
MAJOR ISSUES: Standing to sue–dismissal without prejudice
Agreement transferring patents
Exception for patents and applications “related to” pending litigation
F.3d –, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (RADER, Plager & Schall)
MAJOR ISSUES: Obviousness–no summary judgment of invalidity–fact issues on teachings of prior art references
E-commerce system: more than computerized version of pre-internet systems
Infringement–fact issues on accused system
Definiteness–”standardized” not unduly subjective
