PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, June 26, 2013

einstein, gazda, global-tech

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1789 Ex Parte Oles et al 10474624 - (D) SMITH 112(1)/103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. MATZEK, MATTHEW D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2156 Ex Parte Bilotti 11122390 - (D) BENOIT 103 AT&T Legal Department - G&G OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2649 Ex Parte Lee et al 11591985 - (D) COURTENAY 102 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. SOROWAR, GOLAM

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Reyes et al 11941024 - (D) PLENZLER 103 Stolowitz Ford Cowger LLP BURKE, SEAN P

3646 Ex Parte Pomirleanu et al 11840424 - (D) JUNG 103 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, LLC MCGUE, FRANK J

3646 Ex Parte Fraundorfer et al 11848394 - (D) SPAHN 103 LERNER GREENBERG STEMER LLP O'CONNOR, MARSHALL P

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3711 Ex Parte Seelig et al 10883952 - (D) GERSTENBLITH 102/obviousness-type double patenting ATIP Law LAYNO, BENJAMIN

3728 Ex Parte Choi et al 11588476 - (D) HILL 102/103 DASCENZO Intellectual Property Law, P.C. BRADEN, SHAWN M

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1772 Ex Parte Gysling 11483025 - (D) OBERMANN 102 103 EXPRO METERS, INC SHUMATE, ANTHONY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3714 Ex Parte Hornik et al 11280826 - (D) BROWNE 103 102/103 NIXON PEABODY LLP RENWICK, REGINALD A

3724 Ex Parte Myers 10987838 - (D) HORNER 102 102 Yudell Isidore Ng Russell PLLC CHOI, STEPHEN

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1713 Ex Parte Parkos et al 11654410 - (D) HASTINGS 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global REMAVEGE, CHRISTOPHER

1766 Ex Parte Reese et al 12444397 - (D) PRAISS 103 OBLON, SPIVAK, MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P. WASHVILLE, JEFFREY D

1771 Ex Parte Stark et al 12243753 - (D) PER CURIAM 102/103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1771 Ex Parte Stark et al 12246057 - (D) PER CURIAM 103 Mossman, Kumar and Tyler, PC TOOMER, CEPHIA D

1789 Ex Parte Lev et al 12236635 - (D) OWENS 103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ORTIZ, ANGELA Y

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2166 Ex Parte Krishnamurthy 10848640 - (D) FRAHM 112(1)/102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 101 HICKMAN PALERMO TRUONG BECKER BINGHAM WONG/ORACLE PHAM, KHANH B

2181 Ex Parte Baskaran et al 10911726 - (D) QUINN 112(2)/103 CAPITOL PATENT & TRADEMARK LAW FIRM, PLLC LEE, CHUN KUAN

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2476 Ex Parte Doyle 10154657 - (D) HOMERE Dissenting DIXON 102/103 ROSS D. SNYDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. AHMED, SALMAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2642 Ex Parte Lee et al 11093782 - (D) PETTIGREW 102/103 WALL & TONG, LLP/ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. PEREZ GUTIERREZ,RAFAEL

2647 Ex Parte Seppinen et al 10606284 - (D) FRAHM 103 NOKIA CORPORATION c/o Ware, Fressola, Maguire & Barber LLP YUN, EUGENE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3654 Ex Parte Mustalahti et al 12213421 - (D) KAUFFMAN 103 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. KRUER, STEFAN

3657 Ex Parte Meggiolan 11517713 - (D) HILL 102/103 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. MOMPER, ANNA M

3658 Ex Parte Hamilton 10715697 - (D) WEATHERLY 102/103 HUGH P. GORTLER BOES, TERENCE

3677 Ex Parte Magyar et al 10544215 - (D) BAHR 102 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION MAH, CHUCK Y

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3788 Ex Parte Perot 12008024 - (D) HOELTER 103 Becton, Dickinson and Company DESAI, KAUSHIKKUMAR A  

See In re Einstein, 46 F.2d 373, 374 (CCPA 1931) where it was stated that “a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a previously patented device did not constitute invention.” See also In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 452 (CCPA 1955) holding that the reverse operation of moving parts would not amount to invention because the “mere reversal of such movement being an obvious expedient.”

Gazda, In re, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955) 2144.04

REEXAMINATION  

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1648 Maxygen, Inc. Requester v. Amgen, Inc. Patent Owner and Appellant 95000440 7381804 10/032,108 GUEST 103 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER: ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C. original Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP TURNER, SHARON L original LUCAS, ZACHARIAH

FEDERAL CIRCUIT
 
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2681 COMMIL USA, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2012-1042 6,430,395 09/784,109 PROST concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part NEWMAN concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part O’MALLEY induced infringement grant of new trial Syles Werbner, P.C.; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP original MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT & GOETZEL, P.C. LEGREE, TRACY MICHELLE

We now hold that evidence of an accused inducer’s good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement.1 This is, of course, not to say that such evidence precludes a finding of induced infringement. Rather, it is evidence that should be considered by the fact-finder in determining whether an accused party knew “that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.” Global-Tech, 131 S. Ct. at 2068.

1 In dissent, Judge Newman does little more than construct a straw man and set him ablaze. We certainly do not hold “that if the inducer of infringement believes in good faith that the patent is invalid, there can be no liability for induced infringement.” J. Newman Op. concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part 1. Nor do we “include a belief in patent validity as a criterion of infringement.” Id. at 4.

No comments :