McCrackenFrank

Case Digests

McCracken & Frank releases case summaries to address and summarize important legal decisions out of the Court system. None of the case digests are legal advice and should not be acted upon as such. You are welcome to forward on case digests as long as the originals have not been modified.

Recent Federal Circuit & Supreme Court intellectual property cases of note

 

JUNE 2008

Quanta Computer v. LGE Electronics: Patent Exhaustion

AUGUST 2007

In re Seagate Technology, LLC

APRIL 2007

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.: Obviousness Analysis and the TSM Test

JANUARY 2007

In re Seagate Technology, LLC: The CAFC Revisits In re Echostar

NOVEMBER 2006

Will Motivation or Suggestion to Combine References in Obviousness Cases Survive Supreme Court Scrutiny? (an analysis of the issues raised in the KSR Supreme Court hearing)

Amgen v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals (Ed O'Toole of McCracken & Frank LLP was on the petition)

SEPTEMBER 2006

Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

JUNE 2006

Primos, Inc. v. Hunter's Specialties, Inc.: Tangential Relationship Exception to Prosecution History Estoppel

MAY 2006

In Re: EchoStar Communs. Corp.: Uncommunicated Law Firm Work Product Protected When In-House Privilege Waived

APRIL 2006

Bruckelmyer v. Ground Heaters, Inc.: Foreign File Wrapper is a Printed Publication

FEBRUARY 2006

Golden Blount, Inc. v. Robert H. Peterson Co.: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege

OCTOBER 2005

JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.: Means-Plus-Function Claim Construction

Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp.: Inequitable Conduct

SEPTEMBER 2005

Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.: Motivation to Combine Found in Old Problem

AUGUST 2005

Capon v. Eshhar: Written Description Under 35 U.S.C. §112, First Paragraph

Terlep v. Brinkmann Corp.: Claim Construction

Datamize v. Plumtree Software: Claim Indefiniteness Under 35 U.S.C. §112, Second Paragraph

NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd.: Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. §271

JULY 2005

Phillips v. AWH Corp.: Claim Construction

Electromotive Div. of Gen. Motors Corp. v. Transp. Sys. Div. of Gen. Elec. Co.: Experimental Use Exception to 35 U.S.C. 102(b) "On-Sale Bar"

JUNE 2005

Rasmusson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.: Enablement Under 35 U.S.C. §112, First Paragraph

JANUARY 2005

Teleflex, Inc. v. KSR International, Co.

2004

Integra v. Merck: Experimental Use Safe Harbor Under 35 U.S.C.
§271(e)(1)