Table of Contents

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES

• Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan
• Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
• Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
• E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.
• Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.
• Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C.
• Medtronic, Inc. v. White

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES

U.S. 4th Circuit, May 12, 2008
Othentec Ltd. v. Phelan, No. 06-2297
In an action raising claims under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act and the Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) plaintiffs failed to present evidence that defendant had used a computer to withdraw funds he was not authorized to withdraw for an illegal or unauthorized purpose; and 2) plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show that defendants were using plaintiffs' trade secrets in their manufacturing process. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 13, 2008
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., No. 2007-1115
In a patent case involving a product used to treat proximal humeral bone fractures, dismissal of the action based on claim preclusion is reversed and remanded where defendant conceded that the accused devices were not essentially the same, and thus it failed to meet its burden to show that the infringement claim in the prior action was the same as the infringement claim in the present action. Read more...

U.S. 11th Circuit, May 14, 2008
Oravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C. , No. 06-14495
In an action brought by plaintiff-architect under the Copyright Act alleging that defendants infringed his copyrighted architectural designs via the design, development, and construction of certain Trump buildings, summary judgment for defendants, as well as a denial of a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, are affirmed where a thorough review of the record indicated that the district court properly made its rulings under the specific facts of the case and did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for leave to amend. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., No. 2007-1568
In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors. Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 2007-1250
In a patent infringement action relating to computer networking systems and methods that provide shared memory systems and services, summary judgment for defendant-Oracle is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the disputed claim term "local" to mean a "computer device that is directly attached to a single computer's processor." Read more...

U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals, May 14, 2008
Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., No. 2007-1280
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert. Read more...

U.S. 2nd Circuit, May 15, 2008
Topps Co., Inc. v. Cadbury Stani S.A.I.C., No. 06-5316
In an action alleging breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets involving a chewing gum licensing agreement, summary judgment for defendant is reversed and remanded where: 1) the licensing agreement was ambiguous as to defendant's entitlement to continual usage of trade secrets after the agreement's terminate date; and 2) extrinsic evidence did not weigh overwhelmingly in defendant's favor to permit a resolution of the agreement's ambiguity by summary judgment. Read more...

U.S. 9th Circuit, May 15, 2008
Medtronic, Inc. v. White, No. 06-16229
In a contract dispute over ownership of a patent, a judgment resulting from a jury verdict in favor of defendant-doctor is reversed and remanded where both an agency jury instruction and a corroboration jury instruction were given in error, and each was prejudicial. Read more...