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

Search This Blog

Loading...

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

matthews, monsanto, sandisk, clapper

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1741 Ex Parte Bennett 11692429 - (D) OBERMANN 103 BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. BELYAEV, YANA

1745 Ex Parte CASTALDI et al 12436260 - (D) TORCZON 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EFTA, ALEX B

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2469 Ex Parte Bolder et al 11290452 - (D) BENOIT 102/103 Kramer & Amado, P.C. TOWFIGHI, AFSHAWN M

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3637 Ex Parte Linke et al 10566220 - (D) WEATHERLY 102/103 BSH HOME APPLIANCES CORPORATION WILKENS, JANET MARIE

3679 Ex Parte Gibb 11127858 - (D) JUNG 112(1) Ballard Spahr LLP RIPLEY, JAY R

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3718 Ex Parte Kando 11304714 - (D) GREENHUT 102/103 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. ROWLAND, STEVE

3773 Ex Parte Gellman et al 10093450 - (D) SCHEINER 112(1) Bingham McCutchen LLP EREZO, DARWIN P

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1631 Ex Parte Palsson 09923870 - (D) MILLS 103 obviousness-type double patenting JONES DAY NEGIN, RUSSELL SCOTT

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Rutter 11683173 - (D) PRATS 103 103 Hasse & Nesbitt LLC DIXON, ANNETTE FREDRICKA

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1733 Ex Parte Johansson et al 10514939 - (D) GARRIS 103 Thomas & Karceski, P.C. ROE, JESSEE RANDALL

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2164 Ex Parte Zohar et al 11070752 - (D) McKONE 103 GRIFFITHS & SEATON PLLC (IBM2) QUADER, FAZLUL

2166 Ex Parte Soumokil et al 10770423 - (D) NEW 103 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP LIN, SHEW FEN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2677 Ex Parte Kuno 11326105 - (D) MacDONALD 103 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP CRAWFORD, JACINTA M

2683 Ex Parte McDonnell et al 10651246 - (D) FISHMAN 112(1)/103 HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY HOLLOWAY III, EDWIN C

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3673 Ex Parte Wyatt et al 10415629 - (D) DANIELS 103 MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP (Mke) CONLEY, FREDRICK C

3677 Ex Parte Schlienger et al 11625893 - (D) MORRISON 103 Fay Kaplun & Marcin, LLP SAETHER, FLEMMING

3693 Ex Parte Hill et al 11836917 - (D) MEDLOCK 103 BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC GOTTSCHALK, MARTIN A

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 REFOCUS GROUP, INC. Third Party Requester and Appellant v. ACE VISION EURO, LTD. Patent Owner and Respondent 95000644 7,871,404 11/376,969 HOELTER 103 ONE LLP JASTRZAB, JEFFREY R original LIPITZ, JEFFREY BRIAN

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1649; 1646; 1616; 1652; 1804; 1803; 2899; 3744  ORGANIC SEED GROWERS AND TRADE ASSOCIATION et al vs MONSANTO 5,322,938 07/977,600 5,352,605 08/146,621 5,362,865 08/117,374 5,378,619 08/172,334 5,424,412 08/181,364 5,463,175 08/391,339 5,530,196 08/300,029 5,593,874 08/855,857 5,641,876 08/144,602 5,659,122 08/280,263 5,717,084 08/470,719 5,728,925 08/430,257 5,750,871 08/415,351 5,859,347 08/758,149 6,025,545 08/440,689 6,040,497 08/832,078 6,051,753 07/985,742 6,083,878 09/155,429 6,753,463 08/336,555 6,825,400 09/872,051 RE38,825 09/612,404 RE39,247 10/622,201 DYK motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Public Patent Foundation; Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, LLP MOODY, PATRICIA; FOX, DAVID T; MCELWAIN, ELIZABETH F; CAPOSSELA, RONALD C; CHERESKIN, CHE; KEMMERER, ELIZABETH; BENZION, GARY; CLARDY, S; KRUSE, DAVID H; RAO, MANJUNATH N;

“In determining whether a justiciable controversy is present, the analysis must be calibrated to the particular facts of each case.” Matthews Int’l Corp. v. Biosafe Eng’g, LLC, 695 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Although there is no bright-line rule applicable to patent cases, we have held that “Article III jurisdiction may be met where the patentee takes a position that puts the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the position of either pursuing arguably illegal behavior or abandoning that which he claims a right to do.” SanDisk Corp. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 480 F.3d 1372, 1380–81 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A reasonable apprehension of suit is not necessary. Id. However, “jurisdiction generally will not arise merely on the basis that a party learns of the existence of a patent owned by another or even perceives such a patent to pose a risk of infringement.” Id. Thus, the question in this case is not whether the appellants’ subjective fear of suit by Monsanto is genuine, but whether they have demonstrated a “‘substantial risk’ that the harm will occur, which may prompt [them] to reasonably incur costs to mitigate or avoid that harm.” See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. ___, ___, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1150 n.5 (2013) (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 2754–55 (2010)).

No comments :