The case involved Stored Value Solutions (SVS) seeking a declaratory judgment that Card Activation Technologies' (CAT) U.S. Patent No. 6,032,859, which discloses methods for processing electronic transactions with ATM, debit, or phone cards using counter-top terminals, was invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. After construing the term 'purchase transaction' and reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment along with expert testimony, the court denied CAT's motions for validity and to exclude an expert, granted SVS's motion for invalidity due to anticipation and obviousness in part based on prior art such as terminal operation manuals describing similar ATM return and activation processes, and granted partial summary judgment invalidating claims 20, 22-31, and 33-38 for lack of written description. The reasoning centered on the ordinary meaning of claim terms from the specification and prosecution history, comparison to anticipatory prior art references, and the patent's failure to adequately describe the full scope of the asserted claims.
This case was a patent infringement suit brought by Purdue Pharma and Napp against Par Pharmaceutical after Par filed an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Ultram ER, an extended-release tramadol pain-relief drug. Plaintiffs asserted two patents covering controlled-release tramadol formulations. Following a bench trial, the court found that Par's tablets infringed the asserted claims but concluded the claims were invalid as obvious in view of prior art references, including the Oshlack and Kaiko patents that disclosed similar controlled-release opioid formulations; the court also held that Par failed to prove inequitable conduct during patent prosecution.
This case is a patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act in which Purdue Pharma and related entities sued Par Pharmaceutical over Par's Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking FDA approval to market a generic extended-release tramadol tablet. The opinion resolves the parties' competing requests for construction of disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,254,887 and 7,074,430, which describe controlled-release oral tramadol formulations with specified in vitro dissolution rates and 24-hour therapeutic effects. The court interpreted the claims according to their ordinary meaning in light of the patent specifications, figures, and prosecution history, adopting constructions that encompass broad release-rate ranges while rejecting narrower limitations proposed by either side. It emphasized that the claimed preparations must provide the therapeutic effect through the tablet itself when dosed every 24 hours, without requiring repeated administration or external sources.
The case concerns a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Novozymes against Genencor and EDC over U.S. Patent No. 6,867,031, which covers alpha-amylase enzymes used in fuel ethanol production. Following an earlier trial that established infringement, validity, and enforceability of certain claims, this phase addressed standing, damages, and willfulness. The court determined that Novozymes's U.S. subsidiary lacked standing to join as a plaintiff, that Novozymes was not entitled to lost profits but could recover a reasonable royalty, and that the infringement was willful. It awarded double damages and attorneys' fees, and imposed a permanent injunction, based on analysis of licensing agreements, the parties' corporate relationship, and application of the Georgia-Pacific and Read factors to the evidence presented.
This case involves a patent infringement dispute where Rocep Lusol Holdings Limited claimed that Permatex, Inc. and Ultramotive Corporation infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,685,064, which covers a dispensing apparatus for products from containers. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment of invalidity, finding that the asserted claims were anticipated by an earlier International Application published under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (the '010 PCT publication) from 1999, which disclosed all elements of the claims, including the use of a tilt valve. The court construed the relevant claim terms accordingly and noted that the prior art reference qualified as anticipatory under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), leading to the invalidity ruling and rendering other motions moot.
Jeffrey Fogg, an inmate convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy, filed a federal habeas petition and later an amended petition challenging his conviction. The opinion addresses whether the petition was timely filed under the one-year limitations period of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), accounting for statutory tolling during state post-conviction proceedings and extensions related to appeals and mandates. The court determined that equitable tolling was warranted due to specific delays in the post-conviction process, including issues with counsel and court filings, and therefore the amended petition was not time-barred. The State was ordered to respond to the petition.
