Opinions Archives - Page 2 of 2 - Jafari Law Group | California Employment Litigation & Patent Lawyers

Tə – ˈmeɪ – toʊ / Tə – ˈmɑ – toʊ: Fruit or Vegetable?

July 31 2013

I recently visited the annual Orange County Fair for the first time and was very impressed with the array of attractions. Thousands of turkeys barbecued over open flames raising clouds of the essence of summer over the entirety of the fair. A Bubble Roller pool showcased kids zipped up in life sized bubbles and tossed …

Continue reading “Tə – ˈmeɪ – toʊ / Tə – ˈmɑ – toʊ: Fruit or Vegetable?”

How the Supreme Court’s Gene Patent Ruling Affects Patent Law

June 21 2013

The past twenty-five years have seen amazing advancement in scientific understanding of the human body. From cloning to stem cells, major scientific breakthroughs have turned the body itself into a kind of technology to be manipulated and played with. But the crowning achievement of this new research into the human body is arguably the Human …

Continue reading “How the Supreme Court’s Gene Patent Ruling Affects Patent Law”

US Supreme Court Rules Isolated Human Genes Unpatentable

June 20 2013

On Thursday, June 13, 2013, the United States Supreme Court posted, in a 9-0 count, that isolated human genes do not qualify as patentable subject matter. Myriad Genetics, a biotech company, owns patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, mutations of which help to increase the risk for particular breast and ovarian cancers. The question …

Continue reading “US Supreme Court Rules Isolated Human Genes Unpatentable”

In Re Pennington Seed, Inc. on Trademark/Generic Designation

June 20 2013

On October 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (the Board) decision to deny registration of the mark “Rebel” for grass seed on the grounds that the mark is a generic designation of the seed and therefore not entitled to registration. Pennington Seed, Inc. …

Continue reading “In Re Pennington Seed, Inc. on Trademark/Generic Designation”

CAFC Rules on Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)

June 12 2013

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that omission during prosecution of “comparative data” that is not at issue in a prior art does not constitute inequitable conduct. However, the court reversed the lower court’s ruling that found the patent to be invalid as anticipated. Impax Laboratories …

Continue reading “CAFC Rules on Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. §102(b)”

TSM Test for Obviousness Argued Before the Supreme Court

January 03 2013

On November 28, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the case of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. The case itself concerned a broadly worded patent claim that the United States Patent Office (USPTO) told the Supreme Court was invalid under Section 103 of the Patent Act and was issued in …

Continue reading “TSM Test for Obviousness Argued Before the Supreme Court”

In Defense of M-S-T: The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dyestar v. C.H. Patrick

December 06 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick Co. and Bann Quimica decision that defended the use of the “motivation-suggesting teaching” (hereinafter: “M-S-T”) test in order to determine a finding of obviousness in the matter of patented inventions. The opinion is of particular interest …

Continue reading “In Defense of M-S-T: The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dyestar v. C.H. Patrick”

Unscrupulous Copyist, Beware the Doctrine of Equivalents

November 06 2011

In Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc., Case No. 06-1118 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 15, 2006), pharmaceutical company, Mayne Pharma, Inc. (Mayne), lost an appeal from a district court’s decision finding their infringing product was specifically designed to mimic their competitor’s improved anesthetic. But although Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. (Abraxis) ultimately won their patent infringement …

Continue reading “Unscrupulous Copyist, Beware the Doctrine of Equivalents”

Medical Device Under Judicial Microscope: DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.

January 16 2007

Johnson & Johnson subsidiary DePuy Spine, Inc. (DePuy) was recently involved in a $20 million (plus) patent infringement case regarding polyaxial screw spinal implant devices. The case was litigated to a jury yielding a verdict of $20 million in favor of DePuy Spine. On appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld DePuy Spine’s $20 million verdict as …

Continue reading “Medical Device Under Judicial Microscope: DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.”

IP Now