Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6487 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (KENDALL, district judge, Michel & Gajarsa)PowerOne03302010

MAJOR ISSUES: definiteness; construction of technical term giving reasonable guidance to jury; “near”, “adapted to”; precise measurements not required; obviousness; conflicting expert testimony supporting jury verdict; all claim elements in prior art: obviousness not established; secondary considerations; industry praised; infringer touting patented feature to its customers Read CPLRG™ 0038

Pressure Products Medical Supplies v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Lourie, Gajarsa & Moore; NEWMAN, concurring- in- part & dissenting-in-part) PressureProducts03242010

MAJOR ISSUES: supplementing Markman claim construction order during trial; means-plus-function limitations; corresponding structure in prior art incorporated by reference not sufficiently described; obviousness; support for jury verdict; expert testimony that prior art lacked a claim limitation; secondary considerations; prior art considered by PTO during examination and reexamination; inequitable conduct: untimely motion to amend answer to add a defense Read CPLRG™ 0036

Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Michel & Plager), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 605 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (PLAGER, dissenting from denial of panel rehearing) EnzoBiochem03242010

MAJOR ISSUES:  definiteness of claim language; biotechnology; nucelic acid labeling and detection; “substantially interfere”; summary judgment on invalidity by anticipation; prior art references; claim interpretation; claim differentiation Read CPLRG™ 0037

Marrin v. Griffin, 599 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (DYK & Bryson; NEWMAN, dissenting) MarrinGriffin03222010
      
MAJOR ISSUES: claim preamble as limitation; anticipation; preamble as basis for distinguishing prior art; prosecution history; negative limitation Read CPLRG™ 0035

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (En Banc) (LOURIE, Michel, Newman, Mayer, Bryson, Gajarsa, Dyk & Prost; NEWMAN, additional views; GAJARSA, concurring; RADER & Linn, dissenting-in-part & concurring-in-part; LINN & Rader, dissenting-in-part & concurring-in-part)

Ariad03222010

MAJOR ISSUES: Written description of invention (Section 112); requirement separate from enablement; original claims; support for generic claims; invention described by biological function Read CPLRG™ 0016