Close

Articles Posted by Stan Gibson

Updated:

Another Inequitable Conduct Defense Bites the Dust after Thereasense

Abaxis, Inc. (“Abaxis”) filed a patent infringement action against Cepheid asserting that Cepheid infringed four of Abaxis’ patents. In its answer, Cepheid asserted a defense of inequitable conduct and Abaxis moved to dismiss the defense. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion. In…

Updated:

Avoiding Means-Plus-Function in the Up and Down World of Elevators

Mean-plus-function limitations in patent claims require special construction and can result in narrow patent claims that may not be beneficial to patent owners. As a result, many potential infringers will try to take advantage by claiming that certain terms in patent claims are in reality means-plus-function claims. The determination of…

Updated:

Motion for Ongoing Royalty Denied Where Jury Awarded Lump Sum in Verdict

Plaintiff Personal Audio, LLC (“Personal Audio”) filed a patent infringement action against Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) over two patents, which teach an audio program player that will play a sequence of audio program files and accept commands from the user to skip forward or backward in the sequence. After a jury…

Updated:

Even After Therasense a Defense of Inequitable Conduct Survives Summary Judgment

After the Federal Circuit’s decision in Thereasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co., 2011 WL 2028255 (Fed. Cir. 2011), it appeared likely that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to proceed on an inequitable conduct claim. A recent decision from the United States District Court for the District of…

Updated:

Terminal Disclaimer Renders Patent Unenforceable

Plaintiff, Jan Voda, M.D. (“Dr. Voda”), filed a patent infringement action against Medtronic Inc. (“Medtronic”) based on a patent that taught how to use a guide catheter to perform angioplasty of the left coronary artery. After Dr. Voda filed an amended complaint adding an additional patent, Medtronic moved to dismiss…

Updated:

Medical Method Claims for Detecting Down Syndrome Is Patentable Under Bilski But Rendered Anticipated and Obvious by the Prior Art

In a patent dispute over a method for detecting fetal Down syndrome, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts invalidated the patent owner’s patent because it was anticipated and obvious. The patent at issue describes screening methods to determine Down syndrome in which physicians estimate the risk…

Updated:

Contempt Motion Granted Where Defendant Offered to Sell Its Infringing Product After Entry of a Permanent Injunction

Plaintiffs and defendant manufacture machines that automatically inspect integrated circuits made on semiconductor wafers. Plaintiffs sued defendant for patent infringement and a jury found that the patent was valid and infringed, but did not find that the infringement was willful. After the jury verdict, the defendant notified its sales force…

Updated:

Transfer Motion Denied Even Where Defendants Consent to Jurisdiction in the Proposed Transferee District

In a recent case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the court denied defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court’s analysis focused primarily on whether the case could have originally been filed in the District of New…

Updated:

Sanctions Granted for Repeated Discovery Misconduct and Attorneys’ Fees Awarded for Counsel’s Fabricated E-Mail

Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action alleging direct infringement of a single patent. The defendant, a corporation, sought an extension of time to respond to the complaint through a request from its CEO. Because corporations cannot represented themselves and must instead be represented by a licensed attorney, the district court…

Updated:

Plaintiff’s Discovery Misconduct Leads To Award of $800,000 in Attorneys’ Fees

In a patent infringement action, the district court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the on sale bar and dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Defendants then requested that the district court find the case exceptional due plaintiff’s litigation misconduct. Based on that misconduct, the district court found that…

Contact Us