Case Summaries

[05/14] E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.
In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors.

[05/14] Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert.

[05/14] Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to computer networking systems and methods that provide shared memory systems and services, summary judgment for defendant-Oracle is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the disputed claim term "local" to mean a "computer device that is directly attached to a single computer's processor."

[05/14] Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend.

[05/13] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
In a patent case involving a product used to treat proximal humeral bone fractures, dismissal of the action based on claim preclusion is reversed and remanded where defendant conceded that the accused devices were not essentially the same, and thus it failed to meet its burden to show that the infringement claim in the prior action was the same as the infringement claim in the present action.

More...