In Rambus v. Hynix, 5:05CV334 (N.D. Cal.
Dec. 29, 2008), at docket entry #2997, Judge Whyte largely rejected
proffered expert testimony on the “secondary considerations” that
indicate nonobviousness. A showing of these indicia of nonobviousness
has grown in importance since the Supreme Court lowered the pedal
against obvious combination patents, in KSR v. Teleflex. [...]
After some 350 docket entries, a firm that was representing certain
opt-out plaintiffs in the DRAM antitrust case was disqualified in
Unisys Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 3:06-CV-2915 (N.D. Cal.
12/18/2008). The D.C. firm had merged in a California firm in Oct.
2008, which brought in as a partner an attorney who had represented an ...
The prior post about magnetic
toy blocks might not have suggested a preferred embodiment for a gift
to/from a patent attorney. Consider then, the alleged infringing
“Bodyfat Analyzer and Scale” products in the recent suit, Tanita Corp.
v. Homedics-USA, Inc., 1:08-CV-7145 (N.D. Il., filed 12/12/08).
Perhaps this gift idea is not new, since some patents acknowledge it
long was [...]
Claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty proceeded past summary
judgment motions in Vaxiion Therapeutics v. Foley & Lardner,
3-07-CV-280 (S.D. Cal., Dec. 4, 2008). A subject-matter conflict, or
technology conflict, was alleged based on patent attorneys in the
firm’s San Diego and D.C. offices filing applications for separate
companies, both claiming “minicell” technologies. The [...]
It was Judge Longobardi in Delaware who I
recall asking: ‘how many times do you patent attorneys expect me to try
your case?’ What recalled that was the Magistrate’s R&R
preliminarily construing claims terms for the District Judge to use on
a preliminary injunction motion in Symbol Technol. v. Janam Technol.,
1:08CV340-JJF (D. Del. 12/1/2008).