Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, Sep 13 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 items:
1) The USPTO’s updated examination guidelines on the issue of obviousness. (attached)
2) Spine Solutions, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 9/9/2010)
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to intervertebral implants used to replace discs between vertebrae in the spinal column that have degenerated or become diseased, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for JMOL that the asserted claims of the ‘071 patent are invalid for obviousness is affirmed; 2) district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement is affirmed; 3) district court’s grant of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing defendant’s 35 U.S.C. section 112 defenses is affirmed; 4) district court’s construction of the term “operative engagement” is affirmed; 5) district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and its grant of summary judgment of infringement with respect to O-Maverick is reversed and remanded for the court to enter judgment of noninfringement with respect to O-Maverick; 6) district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for JMOL of lost profits is reversed and jury’s award of lost profits damages is vacated and remanded for the court to determine any additional reasonable royalty to which plaintiff might be entitled; 7) district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for JMOL of no willfulness is reversed and the enhanced damages and attorney fee awards vacated; and 8) the matter is remanded for the district court to modify the terms of the permanent injunction by deleting the extraterritorial portion.