This is James B. Gehrke's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following James B. Gehrke's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
James B. Gehrke
Wisconsin Advanced Technology Advocates, Inc.
Recent Activity
Held: 1. Section 314(d) bars Cuozzo’s challenge to the Patent Office’s decision to institute inter partes review. Pp. 7–12. (a) The text of §314(d) expressly states that the Patent Office’s determinations whether to institute inter partes review “shall be final... Continue reading
Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. (“Allied”) appeals the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) decision, on inter partes reexamination, concluding that claims 1–21 of U.S. Patent No. 7,121,489 (“the ’489 patent”) would have been obvious over German... Continue reading
This is an appeal from decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in two inter partes review proceedings. At the behest of petitioner Biomarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (“Biomarin”), the Board held various claims of two patents owned by Genzyme Therapeutics... Continue reading
SAS Institute, Inc. filed an inter partes review (“IPR”) petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to review the patentability of ComplementSoft’s U.S. Patent No. 7,110,936. The Board instituted an IPR proceeding on some, but not all, of... Continue reading
Plaintiff, a provider of healthcare services in New York and Pennsylvania, and Defendant, a provider of digital health-related content nationwide, both appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Forrest, J.),... Continue reading
Defendant Vimeo, LLC, an Internet service provider, brings this interlocutory appeal on certified questions from the rulings of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.), and Plaintiffs, who are owners of copyrights in... Continue reading
Held: 1. When deciding whether to award attorney’s fees under §505, a district court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position, while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees. Pp.... Continue reading
Following the district court’s claim construction order, Indacon, Inc. and Facebook, Inc. stipulated to noninfringement, and the district court entered final judgment in favor of Facebook. Indacon appeals, disputing the district court’s construction of several claim terms. Because the district... Continue reading
This case returns to this court on vacatur and remand from the Supreme Court, “for further consideration in light of Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., [135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015)].” Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,... Continue reading
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants and vacated an award of attorney’s fees on a claim that in the Madonna song Vogue, a modified version of a horn segment allegedly copied from a... Continue reading
Superior Industries sued Masaba for infringing its patents on a drive-over truck dump conveyor system and a braced telescoping support strut. The district court construed a number of terms across the five patents at issue, and granted summary judgment of... Continue reading
Innovative Wireless Solutions (“IWS”) appeals the final judgment of non-infringement of the district court in the Western District of Texas. IWS challenges the district court’s conclusion that the asserted patent claims are limited to wired rather than wireless communications. Because... Continue reading
David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC (“Netzer”)* appeals from the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granting summary judgment of noninfringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent 6,677,496 (“the ’496 patent”). David Netzer... Continue reading
A new ground of rejection, however, is not a final decision for the purposes of judicial review. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50. After a new ground of rejection, the patent owner can either (1) reopen prosecution and, if the rejection... Continue reading
Profectus Technology LLC (“Profectus”) appeals a district court’s claim construction order and grant of summary judgment of non-infringement. The patent-in-suit is directed to a mountable digital picture frame for displaying digital images. Profectus asserted certain of the patent claims against... Continue reading
Aqua Products, Inc. (“Aqua”) appeals from the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,273,183 (“’183 patent”). The Board denied Aqua’s motion to substitute claims 22–24.... Continue reading
Albert Brumley, author of the gospel song “I’ll Fly Away,” assigned the song’s copyright to his son Robert. That is something federal copyright law allows. During the term of a copyright, an author has relatively free rein: He may use... Continue reading
Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, and unfair competition claims, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the grant of summary judgment... Continue reading
This is a trademark dispute between two food-distribution companies named Hyson. Hyson USA, Inc., is owned by Leonid Tansky and formerly employed Karolis Kaminskas as a manager. In early 2012 Hyson USA experienced a serious financial setback and suspended its... Continue reading
Cordua Restaurants, Inc. (“Cordua”) appeals from the final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or “Board”) refusing registration of a stylized form of the mark CHURRASCOS.1 In re Cordua Rests.... Continue reading
Appellant Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC (“Diamond”) sued Appellees Hyundai Motor America, Hyundai Motor Company, Kia Motors America, Inc., Kia Motors Company, Nissan North America, Inc., and Nissan Motor Co. Ltd. (collectively, “Appellees”) in the United States District Court for the... Continue reading
TLI Communications LLC alleges that the defendants infringe a patent relating to a method and system for taking, transmitting, and organizing digital images. The district court dismissed the complaint after concluding that the patent-in-suit fails to claim patent-eligible subject matter... Continue reading
This case arises under the Hatch–Waxman Act,1 and involves Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA’s (collectively, “Glenmark”) 2 proposed generic version of Finacea® Gel, a topical medication for various skin disorders. Glenmark appeals the United States District Court... Continue reading
Watson Laboratories, Inc. (“Watson”) appeals the final judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 6,441,168 (the “’168 patent”) is not invalid under the on-sale bar of 35... Continue reading
This is a patent case. Plaintiffs-Appellants Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Ireland Ltd. (collectively, “Stryker”) appeal the district court’s final judgment. The district court held that Defendants-Appellees Smith & Nephew, Inc. (“Smith”); Wright Medical Technology, Inc. (“Wright”); and Zimmer, Inc.... Continue reading