The Court affirmed the 2009 decision finding the Japanese patent valid, and rejecting claims from Mylan and Matrix Laboratories Ltd. that someone “skilled in the art would have chosen to use the same compounds Daiichi did to make the patented active ingredient.” According to the decision, the judges found that there was no indication that a skilled practitioner would have decided to change the compounds in order to create the patented active ingredient.

The patent in dispute in this case was U.S. Patent Number 5,616,599, involving a receptor antagonist compounds, including olmesartan medoxomil which is used for the treatment and prevention of hypertension. This drug is marketed by Daiichi under the name Benicar and as part of a combination treatment in Azor and Benicar HCT, all of which are covered by the injunction. Benicar, Benicar HCT and Azor are said to help lower blood pressure by preventing the release of a hormone that causes blood vessels to tighten and narrow. Azor also contains amlodipine besylate, which inhibits the entrance of calcium into the blood vessel walls.

The complaint was filed in Eastern District of Texas not only arguing infringement but also inducement of infringement through the sale of products. The complaint alleged that the products that infringe include GE’s Energy Smart FLE15/2/DV/R30 and Philips’ Marathon Classic 65BR30. The Patent at issue is U.S. Patent Number 5,955,841, which is described as a ballast circuit for a compact fluorescent lamp designed to enable a smoother dimming feature.
The complaint states that the defendant retailers should have checked and known that the products infringed.

The plaintiff decided the accused products infringed its patent after conducting evaluations on acquired samples of the defendants’ dimmable CFLs, the complaint states. Tele-Cons sued only after giving the companies written notice of infringement, it says.

Tele-Cons alleges that certain defendants are importing infringing products in addition to making and selling them, but while the option to pursue a parallel action in the U.S. International Trade Commission has been raised, no decisions have yet been made.

به قسمت دوم گوش کنید

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held a hearing by Plaintiff Raymond E. Stauffer after the case lacked standing. According to the Plaintiff, the mechanism that allows Brooks Brothers’ bow ties to be adjustable were marked with patents that expired more than 50 years ago. Because it was marked with these particular patents, this reduced competition in the market. Brooks Brothers argued that the Plaintiff should not be allowed to amend the complaint based on the Judge’s factual decision. According to the attorney for Brooks Brothers “Brooks Brothers is not the market. Now if Brooks Brothers is not the marker, then there is no damage, there is no injury.”
The judge ruled that Stauffer lacked standing to continue with the case because his complaint that competition had been curtailed were “hypothetical” and that he didn’t say which competitor was specifically harmed by the false marking.

Adli Law Group P.C. provides information on current Patent, Trademark, and Copyright issues as a service to our clients. We do this to provide our clients with the latest news relating to their Patent, Trademark and Copyright needs. If your company has been mentioned in this blog and you would like the information removed, please contact us.

The attorneys at Adli Law Group P.C. have formed lasting relationships with businesses across Los Angeles County and around the World. Our attorneys have strong backgrounds in Engineering, Physics, Optics, and many other High Technology fields. Contact us today for experienced help with Patent Acquisition, Trademark Registration and Copyright Protection – 213-290-4933.

This first HTC suit came about in March of this year, wherein Apple filed a complaint with both the U.S. District Court in Delaware and with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The suit involved more than 700 pages of exhibits and called out nearly every HTC product that was on the market in the prior 18 months.

HTC has responded with a lawsuit of their own, and now Apple has filed a second lawsuit with an additional 4 counts of patent infringement for patents relating to smartphones and other mobile devices. This brings Apple into two tug-of-war lawsuits, both involving requests for import bans on both sides.

The focus of this current lawsuit is on the specific sliding movement used to unlock the touch screen, a feature also found on some HTC models. The claims also state HTC violated a power management patent and a “system for real-time adaption to changes in display configuration.”

The lawsuits with HTC and Nokia are still pending.

The Adli Law Group P.C. provides information on current patent, trademark, and copyright issues as a service to our clients. We do this to provide our clients with the latest news relating to their patent and copyright needs. If your company has been mentioned in this blog and you would like the information removed, please contact us.

The patent attorneys at the Adli Law Group P.C. have formed lasting relationships with businesses across Los Angeles County and around the globe. Our attorneys have backgrounds in engineering, physics, optics, and many other high technology fields. Contact us today for experienced help with patent acquisition, trademark registration and copyright protection – 213-290-4933.

3M, the initiator of the patent infringement lawsuit, cites that a retro reflective sheeting product that Avery is introducing to the market violates patents 3M acquired for a period extending from 1998 to 2009. 3M is seeking a court order from the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to stop Avery from selling its product and claim damages.

Earlier this year, Avery sued 3M over label sheet assembly patents and back in 2001 reflective sheeting patents were also the focus of another lawsuit.

The Adli Law Group P.C. provides information on current patent, trademark, and copyright issues as a service to our clients. We do this to provide our clients with the latest news relating to their patent and copyright needs. If your company has been mentioned in this blog and you would like the information removed, please contact us.

The attorneys are the Adli Law Group P.C. have formed lasting relationships with businesses across Los Angeles County and around the globe. Our attorneys have backgrounds in engineering, physics, optics, and many other high technology fields. Contact us today for experienced help with patent acquisition, trademark registration and copyright protection – 213-290-4933.