Enzo Biochem Inc. v. Applera Corp. (No. 2014-1321, 3/16/15) (Prost, Newman, Linn)

March 16, 2015 4:10 PM

Prost, J. Reversing claim construction of patent related to DNA sequencing, vacating judgment of infringement and remanding. The district court’s construction covered “both direct and indirect detection of a signaling moiety.” The claim requires that “‘A’ be attached … through a linkage group that ‘does not substantially interfere with formation of the signalling moiety.’ [citation omitted] The plain reading of this phrase is that ‘A’ cannot be the whole signalling moiety, as the claimed compound does not include a formed signalling moiety. In other words, if ‘A’ alone could be the signalling moiety, as the district court found, the requirement that ‘A’ not interfere with the formation of the signalling moiety would be read out of the claim, as the signalling moiety would be formed by the sole presence of ‘A.’” Newman, J. dissented.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Vicor Corporation v. Synqor, Inc. (No. 2014-1578, 3/13/15) (Taranto, Mayer, Clevenger)

March 13, 2015 10:22 AM

Clevenger, J. Reversing Board decision in an inter partes reexamination of a patent related to a power converter. A combined prior art reference, i.e., a first patent and another patent incorporated by reference into the first patent, anticipated a claim. Having found anticipation of one claim, the Court vacated the Board’s obviousness rejections and remanded. The requester "should have the opportunity to argue that [patent owner’s] evidence of commercial success is attributable not to the claimed invention, but to the prior art converter taught by the combined [prior art] references."

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corporation (No. 2014-1254, 3/10/15) (Wallach, Taranto, Chen)

March 10, 2015 3:40 PM

Chen, J. Reversing summary judgment of indefiniteness for a patent related to manufacturing liquid crystal displays and remanding. The Court found that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “a contact hole for source wiring and gate wiring connection terminals” is formed by etching contact holes for the source wiring connection terminals and separate contact holes for the gate wiring connection terminals.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Nuvasive, Inc. (No. 2013-1576, 2013-1577, 3/2/15) (Lourie, Dyk, Reyna)

March 2, 2015 12:15 PM

Dyk, J. Affirming finding of validity and infringement but remanding on damages. The plaintiff Warsaw licensed the patent to a related, but non-named manufacturing entity which sold the product to plaintiff MSD and paid royalties to Warsaw. Warsaw sought damages on convoyed sales which it sold MSD, a royalty received from the manufacturing entity and inter-company transfer payments between MSD and Warsaw. The Court held 1) the convoyed sales were not properly part of the damages award because they failed the functional relationship test in the absence of evidence that they had no function independent of the patented product, 2) the royalty payments from the manufacturing entity could not be recovered as a species of lost profits because Warsaw did not practice the patent and 3) the inter-company transfer payments were not recoverable because they were not clearly tied to transactions involving the patented products.

A full version of the text is available in PDF form.