The Claim Game

Microsoft sued Motorola for violating a licensing agreement (reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing agreement). Microsoft was a third party beneficiary of this agreement. 

While this litigation was going on in the U.S., Motorola claimed that Microsoft infringed upon its patents in Germany. A German district court ended up granting Motorola an injunction against Microsoft's production of products that infringed upon Motorola's patent. 

Microsoft ended up fighting back in another suit to turn over this injunction. The district court ruled in favor of Microsoft, granting Microsoft an injunction against Motorola's foreign patent infringement injunction granted in Germany. 

WARF sued Apple for patent infringement on microprocessor technology patent for $400M.

The patent protected claims regarding processor chip design that improved microprocessor performance. WARF claimed that this patent was infringed upon by Apple's A7 processors for its iphone 5s and ipad.

A jury in Madison found that Apple did indeed infringe upon the patent, determining that it must pay WARF.

WARF argued that it is entitled to $2.74 for each device. WARF claims to be innovative and holds many patents, receiving $128 million from patent lawsuits from 2012-2014 alone. Since WARF does not produce products, can WARF be considered as a patent troll?


Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-14/university-seeking-400-million-from-apple-in-patent-dispute

US5031161, or "Life Expectancy Timepiece" is a patent on a backwards counting watch that predicts how much time you have left... alive. So I guess with this you don't have to live every day like it's your last because you know exactly how many you have left and how to ration out your time.

When we think of patents, we think of inventions like the latest mobile phone feature or a groundbreaking diagnostic test for HIV. By the nature of intellectual property law, patents intend to incentivize innovation that would otherwise be unattractive to pursue. Yet not-so-innovative products are awarded patents. One silly patent that I found is US6612449B1, or a "Banana Protective Device".

Glatt's invention applies coats to particles such as pharmaceutical ingredients.

This case involves the Federal Circuit reversing the U.S. Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision that claim 5 of US5236503 was obvious.

Claim 5 follows as:

In a fluidized bed coater having a product container opening upwardly into an expansion chamber and downwardly into a lower plenum chamber through an air distribution plate/screen having openings formed therethrough for upward air flow from said lower plenum chamber into said product container, said product container including a substantially cylindrical partition spaced above said air distribution plate/screen for defining an inner upbed area and an outer downbed area, and an upwardly discharging spray nozzle mounted substantially centrally within said cylindrical partition, the improvement comprising shielding means positioned adjacent said spray nozzle for shielding the initial spray pattern developed by said nozzle against the entrance of particles moving upwardly through the upbed. 

The initial obviousness rejection was on the basis of a german patent DE 3323418:

Naunapper describes the removal of agglomerates by "blowing through" with increases air flow. Based on this, the PTO examiner found the device claimed for "shielding means" and made a case for obviousness (1)

The Federal Circuit disagreed and stated that Naunapper can be used to "(1) circulate particles and (2) clear blockages. The air source cannot perform both of these functions simultaneously, and more importantly, neither of these functions constitutes shielding" (1). In doing so, the Federal Circuit determined that PTO failed to make a case for obviousness.

Sources
(1) https://www.pharmapatentsblog.com/2011/01/06/an-ounce-of-prevention-can-be-patentable-over-a-pound-of-cure/

Background: This case involves Caraco's alleged infringement of one of Novo Nordisk's patents on Prandin, and anti-diabetic drug. Caraco filed for an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) in 2005, in regards to a Prandin generic. In its ANDA, Caraco notes that it would not be infringing upon Novo Nordisk's patent on the grounds of invalidity and unenforceability. Novo Nordisk responded with a law suit.

Patent: The patent at issue in this case is NIDDM (Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus) regimen, US6677358. This patent covers 1) the regimen of short-acting, oral hypoglycemic agents used to treat type 2 diabetes, and 2) a method improving glycemic control by the combined use of repaglinide (Prandin) and metformin in NIDDM patients. The particular claim at issue is claim 4:

A method for treating non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) comprising administering to a patient in need of such treatment repaglinide in combination with metformin. 

In other words, the claim at issue is a claim regarding the method of using repaglinide (Prandin) and metformin in combination to treat NIDDM. 

District Court:

The district court found claim 4 of the '358 patent to be obvious, holding that the patent was unenforceable. This decision was grounded in that 1) it was well known in the art that both drugs had different mechanisms of action for treating diabetes and were hence often used in combination and 2) combination therapy was common at the time of filing the '359 patents and metformin was the most widely used insulin sensitizer. Novo Nordisk appealed this decision to the federal circuit.

Federal Circuit Court:

The circuit court affirmed the district court decision in that claim 4 of the '358 patent is obvious.