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

Monday, June 17, 2013

mems tech, dairy queen

custom search

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1766 Ex Parte Smith 13044613 - (D) NAGUMO 103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP TOSCANO, ALICIA

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3646 Ex Parte Kuttenberger et al 10558078 - (D) BAHR 102/103 KENYON & KENYON LLP BRAINARD, TIMOTHY A

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3769 Ex Parte Wang 11697770 - (D) McCOLLUM 103 FRANK F. TIAN FARAH, AHMED M

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1657 Ex Parte Flynn et al 11750866 - (D) JENKS 112(1) 112(1) BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD. GITOMER, RALPH

Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2816 Ex Parte Fung et al 10908163 - (D) WINSOR 102/103 102/103 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. C/O Faegre Baker Daniels LLP TRA, ANH QUAN

The plain meaning of "coupled" encompases both direct and indirect coupling.  See MEMS TECHNOLOGY BERHAD v. International Trade Commission, 447 Fed. Appx. 142, 151-53 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (declining to limit "electrically coupled" to direct coupling).

Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1612 Ex Parte Liang 10995942 - (D) JENKS 112(2)/103 Foley & Lardner LLP KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S

Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1722 Ex Parte Choi et al 12348981 - (D) NAGUMO 102/103 CARMODY & TORRANCE LLP EOFF, ANCA


1788 Ex Parte Dean et al 11744452 - (D) GARRIS 103 PPG INDUSTRIES INC VO, HAI

Tech Center 2400 Networking, Multiplexing, Cable, and Security
2426 Ex Parte Nishikawa et al 10806713 - (D) KRIVAK 103 FITCH EVEN TABIN & FLANNERY, LLP TAYLOR, JOSHUA D

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2632 Ex Parte Rouphael et al 12284426 - (D) CLEMENTS 102 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P.C. BURD, KEVIN MICHAEL

2699 Ex Parte Jang et al 11340617 - (D) FRAHM 103 ROYLANCE, ABRAMS, BERDO & GOODMAN, L.L.P. LIANG, REGINA

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3778 Ex Parte Elsberg et al 10150360 - (D) RICE 103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. ANDERSON, CATHARINE L  


Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3772 Ex Parte Bonadio et al 10600812 - (D) BONILLA Concurring ADAMS 102 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) 102 Bookoff McAndrews, PLLC BIANCO, PATRICIA  


Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1744 ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PYLON MANUFACTURING CORP., Defendant Cross Appellant. 2011-1363, -1364 6,292,974 09/284,398 6,675,434 09/763,070 6,944,905 10/048,202 6,978,512 10/031,828 PROST concurring-in-part MOORE concurring-in-part REYNA Dissenting O’MALLEY 28 U.S.C. § 1292(c)(2) jurisdiction Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP; Kirkland & Ellis, LLP original STRIKER STRIKER & STENBY GRAHAM, GARY K; TILL, TERRENCE R

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962), underscores the point that after the merger of law and equity, the similarity between equitable accountings in infringement cases and traditional damages calculations meant that even if a proceeding was, in the traditional sense, an equitable accounting, a jury trial was nonetheless required. See Dairy Queen, 369 U.S. at 477-79. The fact that a jury trial was required did not change the nature of the proceeding from an “accounting” to something else entirely, however. See id. at 479 (“The legal remedy [provided by the jury] cannot be characterized as inadequate merely because the measure of damages may necessitate a look into petitioner’s business records.”). This point is reinforced by the concurring opinion of Justices Harlan and Douglas, who noted explicitly that the jury right attached even though the only “‘legal’ claim contained in the complaint” was in fact an “‘equitable’” claim for “an accounting for alleged trademark infringement.” Id. at 480-81 (Harlan, J., concurring). As Wright and Miller note, “ordinarily there is [after Dairy Queen] a right to jury trial on a claim for an accounting.” 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2312, at 164 (3d ed. 2008). Thus, the fact that juries must now determine patent damages does not prevent those proceedings from being “accountings” within the meaning of § 1292.

No comments :