• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Gen. Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (Decided on 27.08.2010)

Llimited exclusion orders against the importation of GFCI products - Infringement of the '340 patent - Violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 - Whether GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs infringed the '340 patent and GPG's 2006 GFCIs infringed the '398 patent?

the court creates a theory which was not proposed by any party, and rules that a signal that originates from the line terminal is not generated by the detection circuit and thus is not "generated. "The identified circuit does not generate this current; it is the current that comes from the AC power connection. There is no support for this theory. The only signal generated in response to proper wiring as described in the '340 patent is "generated" in the same way as in the accused devices, that is, the detection circuit uses power from the properly wired line terminals to supply a signal that allows the device to be reset and 3) GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent; So GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent and GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., v. Maersk Contractors Usa, Inc. (Decided On 18.08.2010)

Suit for infringement of patents, related to an improved apparatus for conducting offshore drilling, district court's judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded - Whether the district court's holding of summary judgment of no willfulness affirmed?

Held, Court agreed with the district court that, as a matter of law, there is no willfulness. Although the contract does show that Defendant knew of Transocean's patents, it also shows intent to avoid infringement. Defendant reserved the right to modify the rig in response to any court proceeding that favored "the validity or infringement arguments of Transocean." J.A. 7190. In fact, Defendant did modify its rig once the court in the GSF litigation issued an injunction defining a non-infringing alternative. Court hold, as a matter of law, that Defendant's actions were not objectively reckless and thus affirm the district court's holding of no willfulness.

Geo M. Martin, Co. v. Alliance Mach. Sys. Int'l., LLC. (Decided on 20.08.2010)

Suit for infringement of a patent, relating to an improvement over the traditional bundle breaker (a machine used to separate stacked sheets of corrugated board), district court's ruling as a matter of law that the '566 patent would have been obvious at the time of invention is affirmed 

Whether the district court correctly concluded as a matter of law that the difference between the prior art and the claimed improvement were minimal?

Held, as the existence of the Pallmac and Visy machines shows that the Tecasa machine was invented within a "comparatively short space of time and the evidence reveals that the relevant Pallmac machine was first installed in 1998, and the Visy machine was first sold in 1996, approximately three and five years, respectively . The district court was therefore correct to conclude that the invention of the Tecasa ma-chine, occurring only a year later than the earliest possible reduction-to-practice date of the claimed invention, qualified as a simultaneous invention. As such, "'though not determinative of statutory obviousness, [it is] strong evidence of what constitutes the level of ordinary skill in the art. Relyed on the Case The Int'l Glass Co. v. United States .District court correctly concluded that evidence of secondary considerations in this case do not create a reasonable dispute as to obviousness; and because the asserted claims of the '566 patent are invalid, remaining issues were moot.