Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Cardiac Science Operating Co. 590 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GAJARSA, Michel & Friedman)
MAJOR ISSUES: Interference between patent and application; interpretation of claim copied by an applicant from a patent; written description support; PTO Rule 41.200(b) contrary to judicial authority Read CPLRG™ 0017
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)
MAJOR ISSUES: Claim construction; prosecution disclaimer. Read CPLRG™ 0018
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)
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
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. 593 F.3d 1325, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Friedman & Dyk)
MAJOR ISSUES: Jury verdict of invalidity; “anticipation or obviousness”; erroneous “could-have-combined” instruction on anticipation; harmless error harmless; claims obvious based on prior art reference showing all claim examples in multiple examples; long-felt need for solution to a problem as evidence of unobviousness; claimed invention broadly covering devices that do–and do not–solve the problem Read CPLRG™ 0020
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)
MAJOR ISSUES: active inducement of infringement; knowledge requirement; offer to sell “in the United States”; shipments f.o.b. from China Read CPLRG™ 0021
