SoCal IP Institute :: December 19, 2016 :: Recent Cases on Direct and Indirect Infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, December 19, 2016, we will discuss the following:
Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 2015-2019 (Fed Cir. December 13, 2016) (available here). Medgraph asserted two patents against Medtronic related to an improved method for diagnosis and treatment of patients that generally relates to symptoms or medical […]

SoCal IP Institute :: October 27, 2014 :: Divided Infringement of System Claims and Pleading Inequitable Conduct

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 27, 2014 will be a discussion of two older cases. The first is a 2011 Federal Circuit case regarding divided infringement of a system claim and the second is a district court case on the requirements of pleading inequitable conduct after Therasense.

Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest […]

SoCal IP Institute :: March 11, 2013 :: Indirect infringement and Equitable Estoppel

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, March 11, 2013 will be a discussion of two patent cases from the Federal Circuit.  Brief synopses of the cases appear below.

Radio Systems Corp v. Lalor, Case No. 2012-1233 (Fed. Cir. March 6, 2013) (available here).

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s decision that the […]

SoCal IP Institute :: March 11, 2013 :: Indirect infringement and Equitable Estoppel

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, March 11, 2013 will be a discussion of two patent cases from the Federal Circuit.  Brief synopses of the cases appear below.

Radio Systems Corp v. Lalor, Case No. 2012-1233 (Fed. Cir. March 6, 2013) (available here).

The Federal Circuit affirmed in part the district court’s decision that the […]

SoCal IP Institute :: December 17, 2012 :: Withdrawing Terminal Disclaimers and Rule 11 Sanctions

We will be discussing two Federal Circuit cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, December 17, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below.

In Re Yamazaki, Case No. 2012-1086 (Fed. Cir. December 6, 2012) (attached).

During the prosecution of U.S. Patent 6,180,991, Applicant Yamazaki filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting rejection […]

SoCal IP Institute :: November 12, 2012 :: Historically Significant Marks and Public Accessibility of Prior Art

We will be discussing one Federal Circuit case and one California Court of Appeal case during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, November 12, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below.

Winchester Mystery House, LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc., Case No. H036253 (Cal. App. October 24, 2012) (attached).

The plaintiff is a privately owned company that […]

SoCal IP Institute :: September 24, 2012 :: Induced Infringement and Covenants Not to Compete

We will be discussing one Federal Circuit case and one California Court of Appeal case during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, September 24, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below.

Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Case Nos. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 and McKesson Techs., Inc., v. Epic Systems Corp., Case No. 2010-1291 […]

SoCal IP Institute :: April 18, 2011 :: McKesson Split Infringement and Summary Judgment of Invalidity

We will be discussing two recent, relevant opinions in our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 18, 2011.  The first case is a further refinement of the on-going development of split infringement jurisprudence. The second case deals with written description and the propriety of summary judgment of anticipation.  A brief synopsis of the […]

SoCal IP Institute :: January 3, 2011

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, January 3 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.

We will be discussing the following:

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, No. 08-1403  (Fed. Cir. Dec. […]

By |December 30th, 2010|Patent, Statutory Subject Matter, Joint Infringement|0 Comments