Kent A. Jordan

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves claims by pro se plaintiff Stephanie Lynn Ford against Unum Life Insurance Company of America for denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA-regulated employer plan after a 2003 car accident, plus related allegations of discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, breach of contract, and loss of a life insurance policy. The court granted Unum's motion for partial summary judgment and denied Ford's motion. It held that the state-law contract and tort claims were preempted by ERISA, that Title VII did not apply because Unum was not Ford's employer, that no evidence supported a Section 1981 claim, and that Unum's benefits denial was not an abuse of discretion under the plan's terms granting it broad discretionary authority.

labor & employmentcivil rightsfederal power

In McNatt v. Barnhart, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of her application for supplemental security income, alleging disability from chronic liver disease, Hepatitis C, varicose veins, depression, and related conditions, with prior denials citing substance abuse as a contributing factor. After an ALJ found on remand that McNatt retained residual functional capacity for light work despite her impairments, had no past relevant work, and could perform jobs existing in significant numbers in the national economy based on medical evidence, daily activities, and vocational expert testimony, the district court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied McNatt's motion and granted the Commissioner's, concluding that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

healthcarefederal power

This was a patent infringement case in which Ampex Corporation sued Eastman Kodak Company and Altek Corporation over U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121. Ampex moved for partial summary judgment that the patent was not invalid for obviousness with respect to seven combinations of alleged prior art systems and references. The court granted the motion as to three of those combinations (SDMS + papers and articles; Response + DLS; and Paint Box + Response) because the defendants did not oppose it. The court denied the motion as to the remaining four combinations (DLS + User Guide; Paint Box + User Guide; Chromacom + DLS; and Paint Box + Chromacom), holding that the defendants had sufficiently identified the references and their relevant features to create genuine issues of material fact for trial on obviousness, particularly in light of pending claim construction disputes.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Ampex Corporation against Eastman Kodak Company and Altek Corporation. Ampex filed two motions for summary judgment arguing that certain evidence, including the Quantel PaintBox and the Harada patent, could not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The court denied both motions, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the PaintBox was sold and used before the critical dates and whether the Harada patent's parent application enabled the relevant claims. The decision is based on the requirement that summary judgment is only appropriate when no material facts are in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case is a patent infringement dispute in which Ampex Corporation alleged that Eastman Kodak Company and Altek Corporation infringed U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121, which concerns systems for storing full-size and reduced-size images. Ampex moved for partial summary judgment that the patent was not anticipated by certain prior art systems, contending that those systems lacked automatic generation of reduced-size images prior to storage in bulk memory. The court denied the motion because Ampex's argument depended on a claim construction that the court had not adopted, under which none of the claims required both automatic operation and the asserted order of steps, while genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the teachings of the prior art.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a patent infringement suit brought by Ampex Corp. against Eastman Kodak Co. and Altek Corp. over whether the defendants' digital cameras infringed claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121 relating to image data storage and processing. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. The core reasoning was that the accused products did not meet the claim limitation requiring storage of the same data initially received, and prosecution history estoppel barred any finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because of amendments made during the patent prosecution that narrowed the relevant claim elements.

propertyprocedure

This case is a patent infringement dispute between Ampex Corporation and Eastman Kodak Company involving the '121 patent. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on the defendants' claim that Ampex committed inequitable conduct during the patent's prosecution by failing to disclose certain prior art. The court denied both motions, reasoning that issues of materiality and intent in inequitable conduct claims are highly fact-dependent and disputed here, making summary judgment inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. There were numerous genuine issues of material fact identified, preventing a ruling as a matter of law for either party.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This is a patent infringement case in which Ampex accused Eastman Kodak and related defendants of infringing claims 7, 8, and 10-15 of U.S. Patent No. 4,821,121, which discloses an electronic still store system that generates a reduced-size version of a full-size video image once and stores it for later display. The court conducted a Markman claim construction proceeding to interpret the disputed terms in those claims. It construed terms such as "video image," "size reducer," "means responsive to said random access memory means for selectively generating," "bulk memory means," and "corresponding" according to their ordinary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, relying primarily on the claim language, specification, and prosecution history while declining to import additional limitations not present in the claims themselves. The constructions also addressed the relationship between full-size and reduced-size images and the order of operations required by certain method claims but not others.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involves plaintiff Ronald S. Riley, an African-American Airport Operations Clerk employed by the Delaware River and Bay Authority (DRBA), who sued the DRBA and several employees for race-based discrimination. Riley claimed inadequate compensation, failure to promote despite performing extra duties, a hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The defendants moved to dismiss, raising issues including lack of jurisdiction due to missing EEOC right-to-sue notice and statutes of limitations. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the absence of the right-to-sue letter was a curable defect allowing the Title VII claims to proceed on the merits, while applying the 300-day limitations period under Title VII and a four-year period under § 1981 to bar certain untimely acts, though timely claims and related background evidence could support the case.

civil rightslabor & employment

This case involves claims by former DuPont employee Mike Y. Mata under ERISA against E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. and related entities, seeking pension benefits that include credit for his prior service at Nason, a company acquired by DuPont, and alleging breach of fiduciary duties in plan administration. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DuPont and denied Mata's motion. The reasoning was that the plan documents grant DuPont discretionary authority to determine eligibility and to decide whether to recognize prior service from acquired companies, that Mata did not qualify under the plan's terms for the benefits claimed, and that there was no basis for equitable estoppel or other claims of breach.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case involves claims by two African-American employees against Delaware Technical and Community College for race-based discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, plus breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Delaware contract law, stemming from an office relocation, an unposted promotion, altered work schedules and policies, and related employment actions. The court considered the College's motion for summary judgment and granted it in part while denying it in part. The ruling was based on whether the plaintiffs could satisfy the elements of prima facie cases for discrimination and retaliation, including evidence of adverse actions and retaliatory motive, while dismissing certain claims such as hostile work environment for insufficient evidence meeting the objective legal standard.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involves Albert Malcom's challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to the denial of his application for Social Security disability insurance benefits, initially based on a heart condition and later expanded to include other physical and mental impairments. The ALJ twice found Malcom not disabled, concluding he retained the residual functional capacity for simple work despite evidence of mild mental retardation and various physical issues, but the Appeals Council had previously remanded due to inadequate consideration of medical opinions and inconsistencies in the record. The district court denied both Malcom's and the Commissioner's cross-motions for summary judgment, determining that the ALJ's analysis of Malcom's shifting claims about disability onset, work history, intelligence testing, and vocational skills was incomplete or inconsistent with the evidence. The court therefore remanded the matter to the ALJ for further proceedings.

healthcarefederal power

This patent infringement case concerns U.S. Patent No. 6,107,285, which covers a sterile, ready-to-use aqueous solution of anthracycline glycosides (such as idarubicin hydrochloride) adjusted to a specific pH range with certain acids and packaged in a sealed container for tumor treatment; Pharmacia sued Sicor alleging infringement of claims 9 and 13. After construing the claims to require a non-lyophilized (non-reconstituted) solution based on the patent specification, prosecution history, and family of applications, the court denied Sicor's summary judgment motions on non-infringement and invalidity for lack of written description. It granted Pharmacia's motion for summary judgment on Sicor's anticipation defense (rejecting reliance on the Janssen reference and related arguments) while denying Sicor's cross-motion on anticipation and denying Pharmacia's motion on the unclean hands affirmative defense.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Novozymes A/S against Genencor International, Inc. and Enzyme Development Corporation over U.S. Patent No. 6,867,031, which covers variants of alpha-amylase enzymes used in industrial applications. After a bench trial, the court construed the patent claims regarding Bacillus stearothermophilus alpha-amylase and percent homology, then determined that the defendants' Spezyme Ethyl product infringed claims 1, 3, and 5. The court further concluded that the claims were not invalid for obviousness in light of prior art references such as Suzuki, Bisgård-Frantzen, and Machius, nor unenforceable due to inequitable conduct or prosecution laches, based on evidence of unexpected results in thermostability and the prosecution history. The case was set to proceed to a second phase on willfulness and damages.

business & regulatoryproperty