Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Only the First, Ltd. v. Seiko Epson Corp., No. 07 C 1333, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 29, 2010) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow, having previously construed the claim of plaintiff's patent to a color printing system, granted defendant Seiko Epson Corp. ("SEC") summary judgment of noninfringement. Each claim required, among other colors, green-yellow ink. Plaintiff admitted that SEC's yellow did not fall within the Court's green-yellow construction.

Instead, Plaintiff argued that SEC's yellow was equivalent to the claimed green-yellow based upon the doctrine of equivalents because although SEC's yellow was a red-green the human eye perceived it as a yellow. But plaintiff's evidence only proved that SEC's yellow appeared yellow. Plaintiff had no evidence that SEC's yellow appeared green-yellow, the color of the relevant claim limitation. Regardless of the correctness of plaintiff's argument, therefore, plaintiff had not met its burden. And plaintiff could not use the doctrine of equivalents to expand green-yellow to all yellows.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Viskase Cos., Inc. v. World Pac Int'l. AG, No. 09 C 5022, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2010) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied defendants' motion for preliminary injunction based upon World Pac's patent infringement counterclaim regarding impermeable sausage casings. Viskase's research and design documents referenced "World Pac knock-off[s]," "World Pac replacement[s]" and "World Pac me-too" products. The key infringement issue was whether Viskase's accused casings were "impermeable" as that term was construed by the Court. The parties set up a "classic battle of the experts" with competing testing disputing whether the accused sausage casing allowed a measurable weight loss, and therefore was permeable. While a jury would ultimately have to weigh the evidence, Viskase presented "more than insubstantial evidence" that the accused casings lost measurable weight. And Viskase's testing was done outside of litigation, lending it additional credibility. World Pac also failed to present sufficient evidence regarding loss of flavor and taste, the other "impermeable" characteristics. Viskase, therefore, raised a substantial noninfringement question. Furthermore, World Pac did not put forth sufficient evidence to warrant a preliminary injunction. Because Viskase raised a substantial question regarding noninfringement, the Court declined to examine Viskase's other defenses or the other element of a preliminary injunction.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Making good on his promise to turn his IP Colloquium into National Public Radio for IP law, Doug Lichtman's newest offering is an extended interview with Federal Circuit Chief Judge Michel.  Click here to listen to Licthman's interview, you can even apply for New York or California CLE credit after listening.  Here are some of Judge Michel's more interesting observations:

• Petitions for rehearing are too often "shallow and weak."
   
• Votes denying en banc rehearings are often close, making the poor petitions for rehearing especially surprising and disappointing. 
   
• Parties interested in supporting cases with amicus briefs should consider filing briefs supporting rehearing petitions.  An amicus brief that was both well researched and well written could play an important role in strengthening a case's en banc potential and tipping close votes for rehearing. 
   
• In re Bilski did not answer all of the 101 questions because not all of the questions were raised in the case or ripe for consideration.  It will take a series of 101 cases to flesh out the post-Bilski state of the law.
   
• Judge Michel is hopeful that the new patent jury instructions -- click here to read the Blog's post about them -- will help bring some clarity and continuity to, among other things, damages and obviousness instructions, although at the time of the interview it appeared that he had not seen the instructions yet.
   
• The Doctrine of Equivalents has almost "dried up."

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Eazypower Corp. v. Alden Corp., __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 2601309 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2007) (Denlow, Mag. J.)

Magistrate Judge Denlow construed the claims of plaintiff’s patents regarding bits for removing damaged screws and fasteners. Of particular interest, the Court defined “in a place including the axis” as “simply what is says”:  “in a plane including the axis.” Plaintiff argued that the Court should read manufacturing tolerances into the term. But the Court held that manufacturing tolerances could not be read into claim terms citing Senned, Inc. v. Richard-Allan Med. Indus., Inc., 888 F.2d 815 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Of course, if the specifications and prosecution histories do not limit the doctrine of equivalents, plaintiff will be able to recapture products that would meet the “in a plane including the axis” but for manufacturing tolerances.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link