News & Cases

Case Summaries

[03/11] Delaware Valley Floral Group, Inc. v. Shaw Rose Nets, LLC
In plaintiffs' suit seeking declaratory relief against the inventor and owner of a patent relating to a process that produces larger rose heads by placing elastic, porous nets over the rose heads during the growing process, district court's grant of summary judgment pursuant to the on-sale bar under section 102(b) is affirmed where: 1) defendant failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact surrounding the dates of conception or commercial sales; 2) defendant failed to dispute that the invention was ready for patenting; and 3) defendant failed to show that the district court erred in disregarding the evidence presented in its motion for reconsideration.

[03/11] Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.
In an action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff did not breach a license agreement for failure to pay know-how royalties on homocysteine assays performed after judgment had been entered in a prior patent infringement and breach of contract action, defendant's appeal from summary judgment for plaintiff is transferred to the Tenth Circuit as: 1) the present cause of action does not arise under federal patent law nor does defendant's right to relief necessarily depend on resolution of a substantial question of federal patent law, and thus, this court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal; and 2) this action is a state law contract dispute over know-how royalties brought pursuant to the district court's diversity jurisdiction.

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

More...