Patent Law Practice Center

CAFC Reverses Claim Construction, Orders Permanent Injunction

Just over one month ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.  Douglas sued Buyers for infringement of several patents related to snowplow mounting assemblies. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. Re. 35,700 (’700 Patent) in favor of Buyers. Following a jury verdict that found U.S. Patent No. 5,353,530 (’530 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 6,944,978 (’978 Patent) valid and infringed, the district court denied Douglas a permanent injunction and assigned an ongoing royalty. While this case was on appeal, the ’530 patent expired, rendering an injunction on the technology covered by that patent moot. The ’978 patent, however, remains in force.

Because the district court applied an erroneous claim construction in granting summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 45 of the ’700 Patent, the Federal Circuit reversed, with Chief Judge Rader writing the opinion and with Judge Newman joining. This Federal Circuit majority also reversed the denial of a permanent injunction against continued infringement of the ’978 Patent, and remanded the case for entry of a permanent injunction consistent with this opinion. Judge Mayer dissented and filed a separate opinion.

(more…)

Reissue & Reexam Live Blog: Litigation Strategies

Next up is Scott McKeown of Oblon Spivak, writer for Patents Post Grant and Practice Center Contributor.  He discussed patent reexamination as a litigation tool.  Some highlights from his presentation…

1. Reexamination v. Litigation Standards: A huge benefit of reexamination with concurrent litigation is in the lower standards. No presumption of validity, preponderance of evidence standard and broadest reasonable claim interpretation.
2. Patents that are ideal for reexamination (invalidity purposes): broad claims, patents subject to inter partes reexam, predictable arts (KSR), and patents with alternative basis for attack.
3. Patents that are less ideal (invalidity purposes only): famous products (TiVo, Plavix, iPhone), unpredictable arts (Chem, Bio/Pharma), large portfolios (Rambus), portfolios with active continuations.  However complete invalidity is only ONE of MANY litigation purposes. (more…)