Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, September 27 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 cases:
Am. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2010) (case is attached)
In a patent infringement suit related to patents claiming various methods and devices for vaporizing tissue by using laser radiation, district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement to defendant is reversed and remanded as the district court erred in construing the phrase “photoselective vaporization” as a claim limitation, rather than merely a label for the invention as a whole.
The Laryngeal Mask Co. Ltd. v. Ambu A/S, Ambu Inc., (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2010) (case is attached)
In a patent infringement suit related to artificial airway devices used to deliver anesthetic gases during surgery and to establish unobstructed airways in patients in emergency situations, rulings finding that defendant’s products did not infringe the asserted claims of plaintiff’s ‘100 patent and that all claims were invalid for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. section 112 are vacated and remanded where: 1) district court’s summary judgment of no infringement is vacated as it was predicated on the court’s erroneous construction of the claim term “backplate”; and 2) district court’s judgment of invalidity is vacated and remanded as plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment on the issue of written description.