M-I v. FPUSA is a nonprecedential case decided on September 24, 2015 on appeal from the Western District of Texas. There, the district court preliminarily enjoined defendant FPUSA from promoting, selling, or renting a system that infringed one or more claims of plaintiff M-I’s patent. FPUSA appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction …
Summit 6 v. Samsung was decided on September 21, 2015 on appeal from the Northern District of Texas. The patent relates to the processing and uploading of digital photos. The jury found plaintiff Summit’s patent not invalid and infringed, and awarded Summit $15 million in damages. Summit settled with another defendant, RIM, before trial. …
R+L Carriers v. Qualcomm was decided on September 17, 2015 on appeal from the Southern District of Ohio. There, after bringing suit, the plaintiff R+L filed for ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. Although the patent survived reexam, R+L added language to the claim at issue. Because defendant Qualcomm ceased its alleged infringing …
Monsanto v. Bowman was decided on September 21, 2011 on appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). “Since 1996, Monsanto has marketed and sold .. soybean seeds under its own brands, and licenses its technology to seed …
I4I v. Microsoft was decided on March 9, 2010 on appeal from the Eastern District of Texas. The case involved a host of issues, but this post will only deal with the injunction. In the case, the jury found that defendant Microsoft willfully infringed the asserted claims of the patent. After trial, …
Canon v. GCC is a non-precedential opinion decided on January 25, 2008 on appeal from the Southern District of New York. The district court granted plaintiff Canon a preliminary injunction. Defendant GCC appealed. The Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction grant. A patent owner seeking a preliminary injunction must show: “(1) a reasonable likelihood …
Gart v. Logitech was decided on August 21, 2001 on appeal from the Central District of California. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). In 1989, prior to the issuance of the patent-in-suit, plaintiff Gart approached defendant Logitech to discuss licensing the …
Amsted v. Buckeye Steel Castings was decided on April 18, 1994 on appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. The case involved many issues but this post will only focus on actual notice under § 287(a). Plaintiff Amsted brought suit against defendant Buckeye on February 25, 1991. In 1986, Amsted sent Buckeye and other …