Rolls-Royce, PLC v. United Technologies Corp., 603 F.3d 1325, CPLRG 0062 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Michel & Schall) RollsRoyaceUnitedTech05052010

MAJOR ISSUES:  obviousness; secondary considerations; commercial success; obvious to try; no motivation to combine; claim construction in PTO interference; broadest reasonable construction; unreasonable construction; interference-in-fact. Read CPLRG™ 0062

Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co., 593 F.3d 1275, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 969 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN & Friedman; DYK, concurring in result & dissenting in part)

Schindler01152010

MAJOR ISSUES: Claim construction; prosecution disclaimer. Read CPLRG™ 0018

 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)

SEBMontgomeryWard02052010

MAJOR ISSUES: active inducement of infringement; knowledge requirement; offer to sell “in the United States”; shipments f.o.b. from China Read CPLRG™ 0021

SiRF Technology, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 7423 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (DYK, Michel & Clevenger)SiRFTechnology04122010

MAJOR ISSUES: patent eligible processes under Section 101; Bilski; standing to sue; inventor’s prior assignment; invention assignment agreements as automatic transfer of future inventions; recording assignment with PTO; burden of proof; joint infringement; control and direction requirements; method claims requiring action only by a single party Read CPLRG™ 0046

F.3d –, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 26570 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (RADER, Plager & Schall)

sourcesearch12072009fc

MAJOR ISSUES: Obviousness–no summary judgment of invalidity–fact issues on teachings of prior art references
E-commerce system: more than computerized version of pre-internet systems
Infringement–fact issues on accused system
Definiteness–”standardized” not unduly subjective

Read CPLRG™ 0011