Currently Browsing CPLRG™ by: Case Name
Browse By: Case Date | Case Number

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 17

Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. - CPLRG™ 0003 - Sep. 30, 2009

Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 583 F.3d at 832, CPLRG 0003 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (LINN, Prost & Moore), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 502 (2011) stanfordroche093020091

MAJOR ISSUES: Standing–Ownership Counterclaim by Accused Infringer–State Statute of Limitations
Assignment Agreement–Assignment of Present Interest in Future Inventions–Equitable Title–Earlier Agreement to Assign Right in the Future–Bona Fide Purchaser–Bayh-Dole Act

Update:  On June 6, 2011, the Supreme Court affirmed this decision.  See CPLRG 0070.

Read CPLRG™ 0003

Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH v. Barr Laboratories, Inc - CPLRG™ 0019 - Jan. 25, 2010

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)

Boehringer01252010

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

Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - CPLRG™ 0084 - May. 13, 2013

Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (Kagan).  For the Court’s slip opinion, click here.Bowman05132013

Bowman, a unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, addresses the issue of exhaustion in the context of a patent claiming genetically modified plant seeds.  Justice Kagan has a growing reputation for authoring opinions in a lucid, clear, and concise style, which sometimes use clever phrases (such as, in this case, characterizing an infringer’s position as the “blame-the-bean defense”).

The opinion begins with a short summary of the issue and holding:

“Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention. The question in this case is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission. We hold that he may not.” Read CPLRG™ 0084

Bradford Co. v. ConTeyor North America, Inc. - CPLRG™ 0060 - Apr. 29, 2010

Bradford Co. v. ConTeyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262, CPLRG 0060 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LOURIE, Clevenger & Rader)Bradford04292010

MAJOR ISSUES:  estoppel against claim to priority of earlier-filed application; opposition to PTO double patenting rejection; argument distinguishing later application from earlier application; personal jurisdiction; Belgian corporation’s contact with the United States as a whole; Rule 4(k)(2); claim interpretation; claim differentiation Read CPLRG™ 0060

Chapman, In re - CPLRG™ 0025 - Feb. 24, 2010

In re Chapman, 595 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (DYK, Gajarsa & Clevenger)

Chapman02242010

MAJOR ISSUES: obviousness; PTO rejection based on erroneous interpretation of prior art reference; reference: no teaching or teaching away Read CPLRG™ 0025

Currently Browsing CPLRG™ by: Case Name
Browse By: Case Date | Case Number

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 17

©2010 Donald S. Chisum - All Rights Reserved

Website design by Bluegrass Internet Services