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
Nonetheless, Grigoleit contends that even if Whirlpool was entitled to change its mind and shift from buying knobs to paying royalties, the amount it owes still should be calculated under the lost profits method of contract law. The main reason... Continue reading
Plaintiffs-Appellants EMD Millipore Corporation, formerly known as Millipore Corporation; Merck Chemicals and Life Science AB, formerly known as Millipore AB; and Millipore SAS (collectively, “Millipore”) appeal the grant of summary judgment that Defendant-Appellee AllPure Technologies, Inc., now known as AllPure... Continue reading
American Calcar Inc. (“Calcar”) appeals from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,330,497 (“’497 patent”), 6,438,465 (“’465 patent”), and 6,542,795 (“’795 patent”) were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.... Continue reading
Appellants, Benefit Funding Systems LLC and Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC, appeal from the district court’s stay of patent infringement litigation pending covered business method review of the asserted claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the... Continue reading
Before the court are the appeal of respondentintervenor uPI Semiconductor Corp. (“uPI”) and the companion appeal of complainant-intervenors Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (together “Richtek”) from rulings of the International Trade Commission in an action to enforce a... Continue reading
This is a judicial estoppel case, which is controlled by two principles: our reluctance to impose the harsh remedy of judicial estoppel, and the failure by the party asserting judicial estoppel to bear its burden to point to clearly inconsistent... Continue reading
Posted Sep 24, 2014 at Creative Protection
Two things can be said for Kienitz. First, defendants did not need to use the copyrighted work. They wanted to mock the Mayor, not to comment on Kienitz’s skills as a photographer or his artistry in producing this particular photograph.... Continue reading
Posted Sep 24, 2014 at Creative Protection
This case is before the Court to answer a question under Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that is essential in determining an action pending in that court and for which there... Continue reading
Posted Sep 24, 2014 at Creative Protection
This case is before the Court to answer a question under Florida law certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that is essential in determining an action pending in that court and for which there... Continue reading
SCA owns U.S. Patent No. 6,375,646 (the ’646 patent), which relates to certain adult incontinence products. After SCA sued a competitor, First Quality, for infringement of the ’646 patent, the district court dismissed the case, finding that SCA’s claims were... Continue reading
Boston Scientific Corporation and Scimed Life Systems, Inc. petition for permission to appeal an order of the United States District Court for the Central District of California that denied summary judgment. The district court certified the order for appeal under... Continue reading
Apple Inc. appeals from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in which a jury found that Apple infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,502,135 (“’135 patent”), 7,418,504 (“’504 patent”), 7,490,151 (“’151 patent”), and 7,921,211... Continue reading
This is a judicial estoppel case, which is controlled by two principles: our reluctance to impose the harsh remedy of judicial estoppel, and the failure by the party asserting judicial estoppel to bear its burden to point to clearly inconsistent... Continue reading
Two things can be said for Kienitz. First, defendants did not need to use the copyrighted work. They wanted to mock the Mayor, not to comment on Kienitz’s skills as a photographer or his artistry in producing this particular photograph.... Continue reading
Interval Licensing LLC (“Interval”) appeals from four stipulated final judgment orders of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Each order granted: (1) final judgment of invalidity of claims 4–8, 11, 34, and 35 of U.S.... Continue reading
Scientific Plastics Products, Inc. (SPP) is the owner of the three United States Patents here at issue: No. 7,138,061 (the ’061 patent), No. 7,381,327 (the ’327 patent), and No. 7,410,571 (the ’571 patent), which relate to a resealable cartridge for... Continue reading
Appellants, Pegasus Technologies Ltd. and Luidia, Inc., own several patents relating to digital pens and receiver devices which, they allege, the Appellees have infringed. Following claim construction of certain terms in the patents, the district court granted summary judgment of... Continue reading
The panel affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s judgment after a jury trial on damages for infringement of enterprise software copyrights owned by Oracle Corp. and other plaintiffs. The jury awarded Oracle $1.3 billion as the... Continue reading
This case involves claims directed to creating familiar commercial arrangements by use of computers and networks. The district court held the asserted claims invalid because they cover subject matter ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. buySAFE, Inc. v.... Continue reading
Plaintiffs-Appellants Mformation Technologies, Inc. and mFormation Software Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Mformation”) appeal the grant of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that Defendants- Appellees Research In Motion... Continue reading
Ferring Corporation (“Ferring”), the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,739 (“the ’739 patent”), 8,022,106 (“the ’106 patent”), and 8,273,795 (“the ’795 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”), alleges that Apotex Corporation (“Apotex”) infringed each and every claim of the patentsin- suit by... Continue reading
The Mathilda and Terrance Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (Kennedy) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,846,442 (the ’442 patent) and 6,270,766 (the ’766 patent). Both patents are directed towards methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis by co-administering two drugs. AbbVie, Inc. and... Continue reading
Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 (“the ’556 patent”) is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (2)... Continue reading
LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) and the defendants are parties to an arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. After LG filed the arbitration, the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement, titled “Agreement Governing Confidential Settlement Communications” (the “NDA”). LG... Continue reading
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. After leaving Gensler, an ar-­‐‑ chitectural firm with projects throughout the world, where he had been a Design Director, Jay Marshall Strabala opened his own firm, 2Define Architecture. Strabala stated on its web site (http://www.define-­‐‑arch.com/en/featured), on his... Continue reading