In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.  

Read SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., No. 09-1099

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided February 5, 2010

Judges

Before: Bryson, Linn, and Rader, Circuit Judges

Opinion by Circuit Judge Rader

Counsel

For Appellant:   Norman H. Zivin, Cooper & Dunham LLP

For Appellee:   William Dunnegan, Dunnegan LLC

In a patent infringement action involving a technology relating to screen recognition and terminal emulation processes that download a screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local personal computer, the decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment that plaintiff's patent is valid and is infringed by defendant is affirmed; 2) district court's ruling that another of plaintiff's patents is not infringed is affirmed; 3) district court's imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 against plaintiff and its counsel is reversed; and 4) district court's award of damages of $506,305 for past infringement based on a hypothetical royalty of 12.5%, plus prejudgment interest is vacated and remanded for redetermination of damages.    

Read ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., No. 08-1365

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided February 5, 2010

Judges

Before: Lourie, Newman, and Rader, Circuit Judges

Per Curium Opinion

Counsel

For Appellant:   Jeffrey I. Kaplan, Kaplan Gilman & Pergament LLP

For Appellee:   James H Hulme, Arent Fox LLP

In plaintiff's claim that the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States unconstitutionally denies equal protection of the laws by imposing different rates of duty on seamed leather gloves "for men" and seamed leather gloves "for other persons", judgment of the United States Court of International Trade dismissing the claim is affirmed where: 1) the CIT's judgment concluding that it had jurisdiction under section 1581(i), that plaintiff has standing to bring its claims, and that plaintiff's equal protection claims are justiciable is affirmed; but 2) plaintiff has failed to state an equal protection claim due to its failure to plead facts sufficient to allege a claim of unconstitutional discrimination. 

Read Totes-Isotoner Corp. v. US, No. 09-1113

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade

Decided February 5, 2010

Judges

Before: Lourie, Prost and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Dyk,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   John M. Peterson, Neville Peterson LLP

For Appellee:  Jeanne E. Davidson, US Department of Justice, Director of Commercial Litigation Branch

Decision of the Court of Federal Claims affirming its Special Master's rejection of a petition for compensation under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act is affirmed where: 1) Markovich controls this case and under it the Chief Special Master correctly dismissed the petition as untimely; and 2) the grounds upon which plaintiff seeks to distinguish or avoid Markovich are unpersuasive, as plaintiff's petition was filed more than thirty-six months after the occurrence of the first symptom of the child's injury.     

Read Wilkerson v. Sec'y of Health & Human Serv., No. 09-5090

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims

Decided January 27, 2010

Judges

Before: Mayer,  Friedman, and Gajarsa, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Friedman,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Kevin P. Conway, Homer & Chin-Caplan PC

For Appellee:  Traci R. Patton, US Department of Justice, Torts Branch

Decision of the Court of Federal Claims awarding plaintiff $10,732 in attorney's fees under the Internal Revenue Code, arising from the imposition of a transfer tax on machine guns manufactured by plaintiff, is reversed as neither the ATF's action in denying the refund on the basis that the firearm had not been misclassified, nor the government's action in defending the denial of the refund on the same ground, was without substantial justification.     

Read Blakley v. US, No. 09-5047

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Decided January 27, 2010

Judges

Before: Mayer, Plager and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Dyk,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Robert G. Nath, Robert G. Nath PLLC

For Appellee:  Teresa T. Milton, US Department of Justice, Tax Division

In a patent infringement suit involving claims for certain tetrahydrobenzthiazole compounds for treatment of signs and symptoms of idiopathic Parkinson's disease, district court's judgment of invalidity is reversed and remanded where: 1) plaintiff's terminal disclaimer cannot overcome obviousness-type double patenting based on the '086 patent because the terminal disclaimer was filed after the expiration of the '086 patent; but 2) the district court incorrectly concluded that the safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. section 121 is inapplicable in this case. 

Read Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GMBH v. Barr Lab, Inc., No. 09-1032

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the District of Delaware

Decided January 25, 2010

Judges

Before: Linn, Prost and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Linn,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:   Bruce M. Wexler, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP

For Appellee:  Shannon M. Bloodworth, Perkins Coie LLP

In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to electrochemical sensors for measuring glucose levels in blood, district court's entry of judgment that certain claims of plaintiff's '890 patent are infringed but are invalid is affirmed where: 1) although the district court's instruction on the law of anticipation was legally erroneous, the jury could not have returned a different verdict as the asserted claims would have been obvious as a matter of law; and 2) defendant's cross-appeal is dismissed, as there is no basis for a cross-appeal as to claims of noninfringement where the district court has entered a judgment of invalidity as to all of the asserted claims. 

Read Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 09-1008

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Decided January 25, 2010

Judges

Before: Linn, Friedman, and Dyk, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Dyk,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant: Rohit K. Singla, Mungler Tolles & Olson LLP

For Appellee:  Bradford J. Badke, Ropes & Gray LLP

Judgment of the United States Court of International Trade upholding the denial by United States Custom and Border Protection of a refund on the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) allegedly paid on exports before July 1, 1990 is affirmed where: 1) Customs retains the authority under the HMT statute to amend and enforce its refund regulations as applied to export HMT; 2) Chrysler has failed to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the validity of the regulation or its compliance with that regulation; and 3) the trade court clearly acted within its discretion in declining to impose an adverse inference.   

Read Chrysler Corp. v. US, No. 09-1267

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade

Decided January 19, 2010

Judges

Before: Newman, Lourie, and Bryson, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Lourie,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant: Alan Goggins, Barnes Richardson & Colburn

For Appellee:  Tara K. Hogan, US Department of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch

In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to an elevator system that recognizes a user when the individual enters an entry location of a building then dispatches an elevator to bring the user to a destination floor based on user-specific data, district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant of noninfringement of the '094 patent is vacated and remanded as, the district court erred in construing the terms " information transmitter" and "recognition device" to exclude any "personal action" by an elevator user other than "walking into the monitored area."  

Read Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co. , No. 09-1146

Appellate Information

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

Decided January 15, 2010

Judges

Before:  Linn, Dyk, and Friedman, Circuit Judges

Opinion by  Linn,  Circuit Judge

Counsel

For Appellant:  Joseph R. Re, Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP

For Appellee:  Mark L. Levine, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP