Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 583 F.3d 1371, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21464 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (NEWMAN, Prost & Moore) advancedsoftware09302009    30 Sept. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES: United States Government–Use for the Government with its “Authorization or Consent.”
A patent concerned a method for detecing fraudulent bank checks.  uspatno6792110  A district court lacked [...]

Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 583 F.3d at 832, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21465 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (LINN, Prost & Moore) stanfordroche093020091   30 Sept. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES:  Standing–Ownership Counterclaim by Accused Infringer–State Statute of Limitations
Assignment Agreement–Assignment of Present Interest in Future Inventions–Equitable Title–Earlier Agreement to Assign Right [...]

Janssen Pharmaceutica N.V. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 1317, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21166 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (DYK & Mayer; GAJARSA, dissenting) janssenteva09252009  25 Sept. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES: Utility–Enablement–Method of Treating Disease
A patent claimed a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease by administering the compound galanthamine.  uspatno4663318  A district court correctly held the patent invalid for lack [...]

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 583 F.3d 766, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21165 (Fed. Cir. 2009) astrazenecateva09252009 25 Sept. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES: Inequitable Conduct–No Intent to Deceive
Disclosure of Comparative Data as Requested by Examiner to Overcome Obviousness Rejection
Failure to Disclose Internal Data on Other Related Compounds
Failure to Synthesize Compounds for Comparative Testing
A patent concerned [...]

Iovate Health Sciences, Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc., 586 F.3d 1376, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 25388 (Fed. Cir. 2009) iovatehealthfc 19 Nov. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES:  Anticipation–lack of novelty
Printed publication more than a year before patent application filing–Section 102(b)
Advertisement in a trade magazine
Enablement      
A patent concerned a nutrition supplement.  uspatno6100287   Its claims were to “[a] method for enhancing muscle [...]

Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., In re, 587 F.3d 1333, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26244 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (GAJARSA, Lourie & Friedman) hoffman12022009fc  2 December 2009
MAJOR ISSUES:  Transfer of venue from Eastern Texas district
Writ of mandamus–abuse of discretion in denying transfer
Electronic transfer of documents to local counsel in district
The court followed prior appellate decisions finding that the [...]

Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26245 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (LINN, Dyk & Prost) perfectwebtech12022009fc  2 December 2009
MAJOR ISSUES: Obviousness–common sense not reflected in specific reference or expert opinion
Obvious to try
Long-felt need
Common sense and the Supreme Court’s decision on the non-obviousness requirement for patentability, KSR Int’l Co. v. [...]

Ultimax Cement Manufacturing Corp. v. CTS Cement Manufacturing Corp., 587 F.3d 1339,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (LOURIE, Dyk & Prost)ultramaxcement12032009fc  3 Dec. 2009
MAJOR:  Typographical errors in claims–correction when no reasonable debate about correction–persons skilled in the art
Definiteness–claim construction–dictionary definitions
Laches defense (undue, prejudicial delay in suing for infringement)–fact question on when patent owner [...]

Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LCC, 587 F.3d 1358, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (MICHEL, Newman & Moore) hewlettpackard12042009fc  4 Dec. 2009
MAJOR ISSUES:  Declaratory judgment jurisdiction
Patent holding company
Implied assertion of a patent.
Soon after acquiring a patent, a patent holding company, Acceleron, sent two letters to a plaintiff, Hewlett-Packard (HP).  The letters identified the [...]

Source Search Technologies, LLC v. LendingTree, LLC, — F.3d —-, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (RADER, Plager & Schall) sourcesearch12072009fc 7 Dec. 2009
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
A suit involved [...]