Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3793 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Lourie & Prost)
MAJOR ISSUES: (1) design patent; infringement; detailed verbal description; error in emphasizing particular details on patented design; (2) utility patent; obviousness; more than combination of prior art elements; more than than predictable results; commercial success; prima facie nexus; industry praise; copying Read CPLRG™ 0024
ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc. , 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (PER CURIAM; Lourie & Rader; NEWMAN, concurring-in-part & dissenting in part)
MAJOR ISSUES: Product manual not a “printed publication”; absence of evidence of public accessibility ; submission to PTO: not an admission; on sale and public use without inventor’s authorization; pre-critical date advertisement of accused infringer’s product; damages: reasonable royalty, expert’s error in relying on a patent owner’s prior license agreements with high rates, agreements including software and not linked to infringed patent claim Read CPLRG™ 0022
SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 F.3d 1360, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 2454 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Bryson & Linn), cert. granted sub nom. Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A., No. 10-6, 562 U.S. —- (Oct. 12, 2010)
MAJOR ISSUES: active inducement of infringement; knowledge requirement; offer to sell “in the United States”; shipments f.o.b. from China Read CPLRG™ 0021
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. 593 F.3d 1325, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Friedman & Dyk)
MAJOR ISSUES: Jury verdict of invalidity; “anticipation or obviousness”; erroneous “could-have-combined” instruction on anticipation; harmless error harmless; claims obvious based on prior art reference showing all claim examples in multiple examples; long-felt need for solution to a problem as evidence of unobviousness; claimed invention broadly covering devices that do–and do not–solve the problem Read CPLRG™ 0020
Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. 592 F.3d 1340, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1624 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN & Prost; DYK, dissenting-in-part)
MAJOR ISSUES: Double patenting; retroactive terminal disclaimer after first patent expired; Section 121 safe harbor; examiner restriction requirement in grandparent application; divisional of divisional application Read CPLRG™ 0019
