Egyptian Goddess Inc. v. Swisa Inc., 498 F3d 1354, 84 USPQ2D 1046 Design patent infringement case; point of novelty test no longer required.
Phillips v. AWH Corporation, et al., No. 03-1269, -1286 (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005)
Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., a/k/a SMC Corporation, and SMC Pneumatics, Inc. No. 95-1066 (Fed. Cir. September 26, 2003)(Rebuttal of the presumption that a narrowing amendment to a patent claim surrenders all equivalents is a question of law. Guidance on what factors are encompassed within the three rebuttal criteria set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court.)
Johnson
& Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. and
Mark Frater No. 99-1076 (Fed. Cir. March 28,
2002)(Federal Circuit holding that subject matter that is
disclosed but not claimed cannot be protected under the
doctrine of equivalents).
Rhone-Poulenc
Agro, S.A. (now known as Aventis CropScience SA) v. DeKalb
Genetics Corporation and Monsanto Company (now known as
Pharmacia Corporation)
No. 00-1266 (Fed. Cir. March 26, 2002)(En banc order stating
that Heidelberg Harris v. Loebach (Fed. Cir. 1998) is not
binding authority on bona fide purchaser issue, and vacating
original panel's judgment and opinion. In new panel opinion,
Federal Circuit held that bona fide purchaser defense does
not apply to non-exclusive licensees).
-
Festo
Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
a/k/a SMC Corporation, and SMC Pneumatics, Inc.
No. 95-1066 (Fed. Cir. November 29, 2000)(Federal Circuit
holding (1) that "a substantial reason related to patentability"
is not limited to overcoming prior art, but includes other
reasons related to the statutory requirements for a patent.
Therefore, an amendment that narrows the scope of a claim
for any reason related to the statutory requirements for
a patent will give rise to prosecution history estoppel
with respect to the amended claim element; (2) that "voluntary"
claim amendments are treated the same as other claim amendments;
therefore, any voluntary amendment that narrows the scope
of a claim for a reason related to the statutory requirements
for a patent will give rise to prosecution history estoppel
with respect to the amended claim element; (3) that when
a claim amendment creates prosecution history estoppel,
no range of equivalents is available for the amended claim
element; and, (4) that "unexplained" amendments are not
entitled to any range of equivalents).
-
Midwest
Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc.
175 F.3d 1356, 50 USPQ2d 1672 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (Federal
Circuit to apply Federal Circuit law in determining whether
patent law conflicts with other federal statutes or preempts
state law causes of action).
-
In re
Zurko et al. 142 F.3d 1447, 46 USPQ2d 1691
(Fed. Cir. 1998) (Federal Circuit to apply clearly erroneous
standard in review of Patent Office fact-findings, not
standard set forth in Administrative Procedure Act).
-
Cybor
Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc. and Fastar, Ltd.
138 F.3d 1448, 46 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Claim
construction, as a purely legal issue, is subject to de
novo review on appeal).
-
Nobelpharma
AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc. 129 F.3d 1463,
44 USPQ2d 1705 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Whether conduct in procuring
or enforcing a patent is sufficient to strip patentee
of its immunity from the antitrust laws is to be decided
as a question of Federal Circuit law).
-
Cybor
Corporation v. Fas Technologies, Inc. and Fastar, Ltd.
122 F.3d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Order that appeals shall
be decided en banc).
-
Hilton
Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc.
114 F.3d 1161, 43 USPQ2d 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(On remand
from the Supreme Court).
-
Pall
Corportion v. Micron Separations, Inc. 66
F.3d 1211, 36 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Appeals shall
be decided by the panel to which they were originally
submitted).
-
Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
v. Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. 62 F.3d 1512,
35 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Doctrine of Equivalents,
prosecution history estoppel).
-
In re Trovato 60
F.3d 807, 35 USPQ2d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Case remanded
for reconsideration in light of Alappat and any new guidelines
adopted by the Patent and Trademark Office for examination
of computer-implemented inventions).
-
Rite-Hite Corp. v. Kelley
Co. 56 F.3d 1538, 35 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(Patent
infringement damages).
-
Markman v. Westview Instruments
Inc. 52 F.3d 967, 34 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
aff'd, 116 S. Ct. 1384,
38 USPQ2d 1461 (1996)(Claim construction is exclusively
within the province of the court).
-
In re Alappat, 33
F.3d 1526, 31 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(Patentability
under Section 101).
-
In re Donaldson Company,
Inc., 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir.
1994)(Means-plus-function language in patent claim).
-
Lariscey v. United States,
981 F.2d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(Claims Court affirmed
by an equally divided Court).
-
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L.
Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020, 22 USPQ2d
1321 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(Laches and equitable estoppel in
infringement actions).
-
In re Dillon, 919
F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Chemical compounds
and compositions obviousness).
-
Beatrice Foods Co. v. New
England Printing & Lithographing Co., 899 F.2d
1171, 14 USPQ2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Damages for patent
infringement).
-
Aerojet-General Corp. v.
Machine Tool Works, 895 F.2d 736, 13 USPQ2d 1670
(Fed. Cir. 1990)(Fed. Cir. jurisdiction based on patent
counterclaim).
-
Racing Strollers Inc. v.
TRI Indus., Inc., 878 F.2d 1418, 11 USPQ2d 1300
(Fed. Cir. 1989)(Design patent application gets utility
application's filing date).
-
Sun Studs v ATA Equipment
Leasing, 892 F.2d 73 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(Suggestion
acceptance was improvident).
-
Kingsdown Medical Consultants,
Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 9 USPQ2d
1384 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(Standard of review for inequitable
conduct issue)
-
Gavin v. Star Brite,
865 F.2d 269 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(Jury's patent royalty damages)[NONPRECEDENTIAL].
-
Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland,
Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 4 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(Doctrine
of equivalents).
-
Woodard v. Sage Prod., Inc.,
818 F.2d 841, 2 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1987)(Appealability
of interlocutory order - 1292(A)(1)).
-
Wyden v. Commissioner of
Patents and Trademarks, 807 F.2d 934, 231 USPQ
918 (Fed. Cir. 1986)(Fed. Cir. review of patent agent
registration).
-
SRI International v Matsushita
Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577 (Fed.
Cir. 1985)(Reverse equivalents precludes summary judgment).
-
In re Bennett, 766
F.2d 524, 226 USPQ 413 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(Broadening reissue
application requirements).
-
Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760
F.2d 1270, 226 USPQ 224 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(Determining priority
of invention).
-
In re Etter, 756
F.2d 852, 225 USPQ 1 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(No presumption of
validity for claims in reexam).
-
Atari Inc. v. JS&A Group,
Inc., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir.
1984)(Fed. Cir. jurisdiction on non-patent issues survives).
-
Gardner v. TEC Sys., Inc.,
725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)(Fed. Cir.
standard of review of obviousness finding).
-
South Corp. v. United States,
690 F.2d 1368, 215 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1982)(Court of
Claims and CCPA precedents adopted).
