Tag Archives: Federal Circuit

Patent firm Eolas loses appeal in Web patents lawsuit

Patent firm Eolas Technologies lost an appeal against Google, J.C. Penney, Yahoo and Amazon.com in a long-drawn lawsuit involving key Web patents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed without comment on Monday an order by a federal court in Texas, which had ruled in July last year that several claims relating to the two patents in the suit were invalid.

Eolas in Tyler, Texas, filed a patent infringement suit in 2009, accusing 22 companies including Adobe Systems, Google, Yahoo, Apple, eBay and Amazon.com of unlicensed use of its patents in websites and other products.

Some of the companies including Texas Instruments and Oracle settled and signed licensing deals with the company. Microsoft earlier settled a similar lawsuit.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld

Apple-Samsung phone battle to hit appeals court in August

A court’s decision not to prevent multiple Samsung handsets from being sold in the U.S. despite their being found to infringe Apple patents will go before an appeal’s court in early August.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., said Monday it will hear 15 minutes of oral arguments in the case from Samsung and Apple attorneys on August 9.

The hearing comes almost a year after a jury at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose rejected arguments from Samsung and found that the company willfully set out to copy elements of Apple’s iPhone when designing hardware and software for 26 of its phones and tablets.

The case, which saw Apple awarded more than $1 billion in damages, captivated the technology industry, and the appeals process is expected to be equally closely watched.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

…read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld

Fairchild Semiconductor Reports Favorable Results in Lawsuit Appeal Against Power Integrations

By Business Wirevia The Motley Fool

Filed under:

Fairchild Semiconductor Reports Favorable Results in Lawsuit Appeal Against Power Integrations

SAN JOSE, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Fairchild Semiconductor (NYS: FCS) , a leading global supplier of high performance power and mobile semiconductor solutions, reported that a federal appeals court vacated almost all of a $12.9 million damages award against the company in its long-running patent litigation against Power Integrations, Inc.

In a 59-page ruling released March 26, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit accepted many of Fairchild’s core arguments, threw out a lower court’s finding that Fairchild willfully infringed Power Integrations‘ patents, and reversed lower court rulings on the meaning of some Power Integrations‘ patent claims.

“We are gratified that after more than eight years of litigation, the appeals court has validated positions we have asserted since the lawsuit began,” said Mark Thompson, Fairchild’s chairman and CEO. “We are hopeful that we might begin a dialog with Power Integrations toward a more effective means of resolving disagreements over our technologies and Fairchild’s intellectual property rights.”

In 2006, a jury found Fairchild infringed four Power Integrations patents and awarded $33.9 million in damages, which was subject to tripling because the infringement was found willful. Damages were later reduced to $12.9 million by the trial court. In Tuesday’s ruling, the Federal Circuit eliminated the lower damages amount as well, stating that Power Integrations‘ evidence of damages was “derived from unreliable data and built on speculation.” In vacating the damages award, the court found “there was no basis upon which a reasonable jury could find Fairchild liable for induced infringement.” The court also threw out the earlier ruling of willful patent infringement by Fairchild. The ruling validates longstanding arguments made by Fairchild in multiple lawsuits involving the two companies.

The appeals court instructed the lower court to conduct further proceedings to determine damages from conduct that Fairchild always agreed occurred, which consisted of approximately $500,000 to $750,000 worth of sales and imports of affected products. Fairchild believes Power Integrations would be entitled to a reasonable royalty on the basis of these direct U.S. sales. Fairchild suspended sales of affected products in the United States in 2007 and offers replacement products that were not accused in the lawsuit.

The findings that Fairchild infringed two Power Integrations‘ patents were also overturned by the ruling, calling into question the validity of those patents and whether they cover Fairchild’s products. Further proceedings will be needed to determine the effect of the Federal Circuit‘s rulings on the meaning of several …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

InSite Vision Wins Appeal of Patent Interference Litigation Against the University of California, Sa

By Business Wirevia The Motley Fool

Filed under:

InSite Vision Wins Appeal of Patent Interference Litigation Against the University of California, San Francisco

Appeal Court Ruling Was Split Decision – Two Judges For and One Against

ALAMEDA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– InSite Vision Incorporated (OTCBB: INSV) today announced that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed by a split decision the ruling of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) panel of judges which found in favor of the Company in its patent interference litigation with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and confirmed the inventorship of InSite Vision’s U.S. Patents Nos. 6,239,113 and 6,569,443 protecting AzaSite® , AzaSite Xtra™ and AzaSite Plus™.

“We are glad that the U.S. Court of Appeals has upheld the earlier ruling by the USPTO and are hopeful that this will end this long legal contest,” said Tim Ruane, InSite Vision Chief Executive Officer. “InSite is making important progress in the late-stage clinical development of BromSite, AzaSite Plus and DexaSite, and we are focused on advancing these programs to the next stage.”

In 2009, UCSF claimed that the inventions contained in two patents were made by a former employee of the University alone and without collaboration with InSite Vision, the assignee of all the named inventors. The USPTO entered their judgment against UCSF‘s claim in November 2011 and the U.S. Court of Appeals has now affirmed that judgment.

About InSite Vision

InSite Vision is advancing new ophthalmologic products for unmet eye care needs based on its innovative DuraSite platform technologies. The DuraSite and DuraSite 2® drug delivery systems extend the duration of drug retention on the surface of the eye, thereby reducing the frequency of treatment and improving the efficacy of topical drugs.

The DuraSite platform is currently leveraged in two commercial products for the treatment of bacterial eye infections, AzaSite® (azithromycin ophthalmic solution) 1%, marketed in the U.S. by Merck, and Besivance® (besifloxacin ophthalmic suspension) 0.6%, marketed by Bausch + Lomb. InSite Vision is also advancing three novel ophthalmic therapeutics through Phase 3 clinical studies: AzaSite Plus and DexaSite for the treatment of blepharitis, and BromSite™ for pain and inflammation associated with ocular surgery. For further information on InSite Vision, please visit www.insitevision.com.

Forward-looking Statements

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Court Affirms AK Steel Didn't Infringe Arcelor Patent

By Rich Duprey, The Motley Fool

Filed under:

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition by ArcelorMittal to rehear its patent infringement lawsuit against AK Steel regarding aluminized boron steel used primarily for high-strength automotive applications. 

By rejecting the petition, the court affirmed that AK didn’t infringe on Arcelor’s patent, which allows it to sell its Ultralume aluminized boron steel product. The verdict will eliminate customer concerns over the pending litigation that had convinced the company to hold the product back even though it has had production capabilities for years.

Arcelor had sued AK and two other steel producers, charging they infringed on a U.S. patent for the specialized steel, but a jury in 2011 found the patent was invalid and no infringement had occurred. Arcelor had petitioned the court to rehear the decision but was rebuffed by the appeals court.

The article Court Affirms AK Steel Didn’t Infringe Arcelor Patent originally appeared on Fool.com.

Fool contributor Rich Duprey has no position in any stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool owns shares of ArcelorMittal. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don’t all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Copyright © 1995 – 2013 The Motley Fool, LLC. All rights reserved. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

(function(c,a){window.mixpanel=a;var b,d,h,e;b=c.createElement(“script”);
b.type=”text/javascript”;b.async=!0;b.src=(“https:”===c.location.protocol?”https:”:”http:”)+
‘//cdn.mxpnl.com/libs/mixpanel-2.2.min.js’;d=c.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0];
d.parentNode.insertBefore(b,d);a._i=[];a.init=function(b,c,f){function d(a,b){
var c=b.split(“.”);2==c.length&&(a=a[c[0]],b=c[1]);a[b]=function(){a.push([b].concat(
Array.prototype.slice.call(arguments,0)))}}var g=a;”undefined”!==typeof f?g=a[f]=[]:
f=”mixpanel”;g.people=g.people||[];h=[‘disable’,’track’,’track_pageview’,’track_links’,
‘track_forms’,’register’,’register_once’,’unregister’,’identify’,’alias’,’name_tag’,
‘set_config’,’people.set’,’people.increment’];for(e=0;e<h.length;e++)d(g,h[e]);
a._i.push([b,c,f])};a.__SV=1.2;})(document,window.mixpanel||[]);
mixpanel.init("9659875b92ba8fa639ba476aedbb73b9");

function addEvent(obj, evType, fn, useCapture){
if (obj.addEventListener){
obj.addEventListener(evType, fn, useCapture);
return true;
} else if (obj.attachEvent){
var r = obj.attachEvent("on"+evType, fn);
return r;
}
}

addEvent(window, "load", function(){new FoolVisualSciences();})
addEvent(window, "load", function(){new PickAd();})

var themeName = 'dailyfinance.com';
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-24928199-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);

(function () {

var ga = document.createElement('script');
ga.type = 'text/javascript';
ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';

var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | <a target=_blank href="http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/03/23/court-affirms-ak-steel-didnt-infringe-arcelor-pate/#comments" title="View …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

Senate Must Return to the Prompt Consideration of Judicial Nominations

By Chris Kang

In October 2011, President Obama nominated Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Shwartz is widely respected, having earned the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association – “unanimous well qualified” — and has bipartisan support, including from Governor Chris Christie, who has praised her as “hard working, bright, articulate, great with people and conversant in the law.” And yet, today marks the one year anniversary since Judge Shwartz has been waiting for a floor vote in the United States Senate.

Unfortunately, the delay for Judge Shwartz is not unique. Last week, my colleague wrote about Judge Robert Bacharach, who was recommended to the White House by one of his Republican home state Senators, but waited 263 days for a floor vote before being confirmed 93-0. And on Monday – after 347 days of delay — the Senate will consider the nomination of Richard Taranto to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Overall, President Obama’s judicial nominees wait an average of 117 days on the Senate floor for a vote — more than three times longer than President Bush’s judicial nominees, who waited an average of only 34 days. The Senate must promote the administration of justice by returning to the prompt consideration of judicial nominations. It should consider Judge Shwartz’s nomination without further delay, as well as the fifteen district court nominees awaiting votes. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved five district court nominees. There is no reason they – and the others approved before them – should not be confirmed within 34 days.

read more

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

Senate Confirms Robert Bacharach to the United States Court of Appeals

By Jennifer Palmieri

This evening the Senate confirmed Robert Bacharach to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Oklahoma. Judge Bacharach waited 263 days for a Senate floor vote, only to be approved overwhelmingly, by a vote of 93-0. Not only was Judge Bacharach supported by the two Republican Senators from Oklahoma, he was recommended to the White House for this judgeship by Senator Coburn in October 2011. Yet, early last summer, Senate Republicans blocked Judge Bacharach from even getting an up or down vote – the first successful filibuster of a judicial nominee who had bipartisan support in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In short, Republicans recommended Robert Bacharach for this important position, endorsed him publicly, supported him nearly unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, then blocked him from getting a vote – and now, after almost a year of pointless delay, joined in unanimously confirming him. Even Senator Coburn, himself a participant in this partisan chicanery, called this “stupid.”

Unfortunately this is not a unique case. On February 13, the Senate confirmed William Kayatta for the First Circuit from Maine. His nomination languished for 300 days, yet he was easily confirmed with 88 Senators supporting him. And next up is Richard Taranto for the Federal Circuit, whose nomination has been pending for 333 days.

To put this obstruction in some perspective, the average wait time for President George W. Bush’s federal appellate judicial nominees, from Committee vote to confirmation, at this point in his presidency was 35 days. By contrast, the average wait time for President Obama’s federal appellate judicial nominees has been 147 days.

Today, there are 14 judicial nominees pending before the Senate, most of whom were approved by the Judiciary Committee unanimously and several of whom would fill judicial emergency seats. An additional 21 nominees are pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee. These 35, highly-qualified nominees signify the President’s unprecedented commitment to a judiciary that reflects the nation it serves: 17 are women; 6 are African American; 6 are Hispanic; 4 are Asian American; and 5 are openly gay.

The Senate should move to confirm all of the judicial nominees pending before it. These nominees deserve immediate consideration by the full Senate, and the interest of justice demands it.

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House

US appeals court asks whether to limit software patents

Should an abstract idea written into software and run on a computer be patentable? That’s one question a U.S. appeals court will consider Friday when it hears arguments in a case with broad implications for software patents for companies as diverse as Google and Red Hat.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is unlikely to invalidate all software patents in the CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. case, but it could force tech companies to narrow their claims when applying for software patents, some patent experts said.

Julie Samuels, EFF

The case, which has generated briefs from Google, Facebook, Newegg and software trade group BSA, could “set the stage” for limiting what kinds of software patents can be issued, said Julie Samuels, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

To read this article in full or to leave a comment, please click here

…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at PCWorld

President Obama Nominates Two to Serve on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

By The White House

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama nominated Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

” Raymond T. Chen and Todd M. Hughes have displayed exceptional dedication to public service throughout their careers,” President Obama said. “I am honored to nominate them today to serve the American people on the United States Court of Appeals. I am confident that they will be judicious and esteemed additions to the Federal Circuit.”

Raymond T. Chen: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Raymond T. Chen currently serves as the Deputy General Counsel for Intellectual Property Law and Solicitor for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a position he has held since 2008.

Chen received his B.S. in electrical engineering in 1990 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his J.D. in 1994 from the New York University School of Law. After graduating from law school, he joined Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, a boutique intellectual property law firm in Irvine, California, where he prosecuted patents and represented clients in intellectual property litigation. From 1996 to 1998, Chen served as a Technical Assistant at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, performing the functions of a staff attorney. At the end of his two-year term, he joined the USPTO as Associate Solicitor and remained in that role until his promotion to Solicitor in 2008. Since joining the USPTO, Chen has represented the agency in numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit and personally argued over 20 cases, issued guidance to patent examiners to ensure consistency with developing law, advised the agency on legal and policy issues, and helped promulgate regulations. He has co-chaired the Patent and Trademark Office Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and is a member of the Advisory Council for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Todd M. Hughes: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Todd M. Hughes is Deputy Director of the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Civil Division at the United States Department of Justice, a position he has held since 2007. He also has served as an adjunct lecturer in law with the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and as an instructor for Duke University’s writing program.

Hughes received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1989 and completed a joint degree program with Duke University, earning both his J.D. with honors and his M.A. in English in 1992. After graduating from law school, Hughes clerked for the Honorable Robert B. Krupansky of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In 1994, he joined the Commercial Litigation Branch as a trial attorney. Five years later, he was appointed to be Assistant Director for Commercial Litigation, a role he held until assuming the title of Deputy Director in 2007. Throughout his career with the Department …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at The White House Press Office