Search

The article focuses on the so-called Egyptian Goddess test for design patent infringement in the U.S. It reveals that district courts which look at the scope of design patents under the test have discovered that the scope of design patents is narrow. It discusses summary judgment rulings which show that prior art played a vital role in identifying the scope of the protected design. A ruling held by the Federal Circuit in a case involving Crocs Inc. stresses that the emphasis should not be on differences in individual features, but on the overall design.

The article presents a court case Fresenius USA Inc. v. Baxter International Inc. wherein the plaintiff sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of five patents held by the defendant. The district court has granted the defendant motion for judgment claiming that the plaintiff failed to prove the claims. The Federal Circuit has vacated the judgment and remanded the case for dismissal.

The article focuses on the judgment of U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware's opinion on the court case EON Corp IP HoldingsLLC v Flo TV Inc. et al and the pleadings and standards of proof required for liability in direct, indirect and joint infringement actions. As stated, EON Corp brought an action against FLO TV Inc. for direct, indirect and joint infringement related to software controlled interactive television system. EON was partly granted and partly denied the method claims.

The article reports on the decision of the U.S. District Court Judge Robert E. Payne regarding a court case of Sunbeam Products Inc. It informs that the judge disqualified Homeland Housewares LLC from representing Sunbeam Product as a plaintiff in a patent dispute because a lateral associate's conflict of interest was imputed to the entire firm. It further tells that Sunbeam Product had sued Homeland Housewares and others for patent infringement.

The article reports on the uncertainty of the rulings on the patent rights case filed by Arlington Industries Inc. against Bridgeport Fittings Inc. at U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in 2009. It mentions that the first case found that Bridgeport did not infringe either the 050 or 831 Arlington patents, while the second favors Arlington on every count. Thus, Arlington will file a motion to have the damages tripled and Bridgeport will appeal to the decision.

The article reports that judge Ronald M. Whyte from the U.S. District Court of Northern California has stayed the patent infringement case filed by Rambus Inc. against memory card manufacturers including Micron Technology Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., in view of a recent ruling from the Delaware District Court. Whyte ruled that Rambus cannot enforce the patents against Micron due to spoliation, or destruction of evidence, as a part of company policy after a period of time has passed.