Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LOURIE, Rader & Schall)HearingComponent04012010

MAJOR ISSUES:  laches defense; evidentiary prejudice only in regard to defense itself; indefiniteness; subjective terms; guidance from specification; mean-plus-funciton clause; equivalence of patent’s corresponding structure and accused structure; obviousness; secondary considerations; expert testimony; claim limitation missing from prior art; lack of motivation to combine; commerical success; nexus Read CPLRG™ 0040

Innovative Therapies, Inc. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 599 F.3d 1377, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6727 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (NEWMAN, Michel & Prost) InnovativeTherapies04012010

MAJOR ISSUES: declaratory judgment jurisdiction; justiciable controversy; subsequent infringement suit by patent owner in another district  Read CPLRG™ 0041

HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (GAJARSA, Michel & Holderman, district judge) HIFBio03312010

MAJOR ISSUES: declaratory judgment of inventorship; federal law preemption of state law claims; inventorship on pending patent applications; PTO inventorship correction as exclusive remedy Read CPLRG™ 0039

Power-One, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies, Inc., 599 F.3d 1343, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6487 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (KENDALL, district judge, Michel & Gajarsa)PowerOne03302010

MAJOR ISSUES: definiteness; construction of technical term giving reasonable guidance to jury; “near”, “adapted to”; precise measurements not required; obviousness; conflicting expert testimony supporting jury verdict; all claim elements in prior art: obviousness not established; secondary considerations; industry praised; infringer touting patented feature to its customers Read CPLRG™ 0038

Pressure Products Medical Supplies v. Greatbatch Ltd., 599 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Lourie, Gajarsa & Moore; NEWMAN, concurring- in- part & dissenting-in-part) PressureProducts03242010

MAJOR ISSUES: supplementing Markman claim construction order during trial; means-plus-function limitations; corresponding structure in prior art incorporated by reference not sufficiently described; obviousness; support for jury verdict; expert testimony that prior art lacked a claim limitation; secondary considerations; prior art considered by PTO during examination and reexamination; inequitable conduct: untimely motion to amend answer to add a defense Read CPLRG™ 0036