Apple Inc. v. MPH Technologies OY
In determining obviousness, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language found in the specification is not altered by use of passive voice and plural language in the claims.
Results for Infringement
view Case Detail
Download PDF
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. International Trade Commission
A court considering a co-ownership claim of a past employer on a new invention of a past employee will refer to employment agreement language as well as whether or not the past employer’s claim to contribution was publically available when an application to cover the new invention is filed.
Lanard Toys Ltd. v. Dolgencorp, LLC., Ja-Ru, Toys “R” Us-Delaware, Inc.
In determining design patent and copyright infringement, the ornamental features and functionality of the claimed design must be distinct from the prior art and must be viewed independently of one another.
Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oréal USA, Inc.
Although more evidence is needed than just showing a similarity between a patent and a competitor’s accused product to establish copying, all evidence of objective indicia is vital in determining the obviousness of a patented invention.
Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc.
Separate patentability of allegedly infringing equivalent of an invention of a patent in suit does not require patentee to prove infringement under doctrine of equivalents by clear and convincing evidence, but rather by a preponderance of evidence.
Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co.
After a finding of infringement, the district court denied the patentee’s request for an injunction, and instead granted the infringer a compulsory license to permit future infringement.
Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.
Federal district court erred in construing patent for softball bat without supplying any information about accused infringing devices, since, without description of accused bats, reviewing court lacks full context of infringement action and claim construction component of infringement, and without that additional context, reviewing court cannot fully and confidently review infringement judgment, including its claim construction component; although accused product or process may not be used as form of extrinsic evidence to supply limitations for patent claim language, that rule of claim construction does not forbid awareness of accused product or process to supply parameters and scope of infringement analysis, including its claim construction component.
Planet Bingo, LLC v. GameTech International, Inc.
The doctrine of equivalents does not apply when an accused device contains the antithesis of the claims, and the doctrine does not apply when the subject matter was either foreseeable or deliberately excluded. No infringement was found under the doctrine of equivalents because the term “predetermined” was found to be limiting.
Hydril Company LP v. Grant Prideco LP
A plaintiff may bring a Walker Process claim against a patentee based on threatened enforcement of a fraudulently-obtained patent against the plaintiff’s customers.