Circuit Watcher

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-Polygram Int’l Publ’g, Inc., 6th Cir. Mar. 25, 2008

admin — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:32:08 +0000

06-5420 Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-Polygram Int’l Publ’g, Inc.
Before: GUY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Bridgeport Music, Inc. (“Bridgeport”) appeals from the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs to Defendant-Appellee Universal-Polygram International Publishing, Inc. (“UPIP”) as a prevailing party under 17 U.S.C. § 505. This court had vacated an earlier award of fees and costs to UPIP and remanded to the district court for further consideration. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music, 376 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004). On remand, the district court awarded the same amount of fees and costs to UPIP. Bridgeport argues that the district court abused its discretion. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. … Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-Polygram Int’l Publ’g, Inc.

Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., Fed. Cir. Mar. 21, 2008

admin — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 06:55:01 +0000

07-1169 Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and RADER, Circuit Judge.
RADER, Circuit Judge. On summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin determined that Dell, Inc., Gateway, Inc., Toshiba America, Inc., and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (collectively Defendants) did not infringe claims 17-20, 22, 24, and 26-28 of Computer Docking Station Corporation’s (CDSC’s) United States Patent No. 5,187,645 (’645 patent). Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., Case No. 06-C-0032-C, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2419 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 10, 2007) (Summary Judgment Order). Because the patentee disavowed an interpretation of “portable computer” that would encompass a computer with a built-in display or keyboard, this court affirms the district court’s holding of no infringement. This court also affirms the district court’s finding that the case was not exceptional and that attorney fees were not warranted under 35 U.S.C. § 285. … Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc.

Amgen, Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. Mar. 19, 2008

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 06:33:44 +0000

07-1014 Amgen, Inc. v. ITC
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. By complaint to the International Trade Commission under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337, Amgen, Inc. charged that certain importations of recombinant human erythropoietin and derivatives thereof (collectively “EPO”) are in violation of Section 337. Amgen charged that the imported EPO and the process by which it is produced in Europe are covered by one or more claims of the following Amgen United States patents: Patent No. 5,411,868 (claims 1 and 2); Patent No. 5,547,933 (claims 3, 4, 5, and 11); Patent No. 5,618,698 (claims 4-9)¹; Patent No. 5,621,080 (claims 4 and 6); Patent No. 5,756,349 (claim 7); and Patent No. 5,955,422 (claim 1). The Intervenors Roche Holding Ltd., F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., Roche Diagnostics GmbH, and Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. (collectively “Roche”) are producers and importers of the accused EPO.
.
Roche moved for summary determination of noninfringement as to all claims, on the ground that the imported EPO is exempt from infringement by operation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), the “safe harbor” statute, because the imported EPO is used only for the statutorily exempt purpose of the development and submission of information under a federal law regulating the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs. The Commission granted the motion for noninfringement, holding that all of Roche’s activities are within the safe harbor, including the foreign production of the imported product. Amgen appeals this ruling, on the principal ground that the safe harbor statute does not apply to Tariff Act violations based on foreign practice of patented processes, and also on the ground that not all of the imported EPO was used for the statute’s exempt purposes.
.
We affirm the Commission’s ruling that the safe harbor provided by § 271(e)(1) applies in proceedings under the Tariff Act relating to process patents as well as product patents, for imported product that is used for exempt purposes. … Amgen, Inc. v. ITC.

Claims 4 and 5 of Patent No. 5,618,698 were removed from the case during the pendency of this appeal. [↩]

Amigo Broad., LP v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc., 5th Cir. Mar. 19, 2008

admin — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:34:54 +0000

06-50748 Amigo Broad., LP v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc.
Before GARWOOD, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge: This case stems from the termination of an employment relationship between Appellant Amigo Broadcasting, LP (“Amigo”) and Appellees Joaquin Garza (“Garza”) and Raul Bernal (“Bernal”), and Garza and Bernal’s decision to enter into a new employment relationship with Appellee Spanish Broadcasting System, Inc. (“SBS”). Amigo seeks a reversal of the district court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Appellees. Amigo contends that the district court erred in its ruling by finding that: (1) Amigo failed to produce legally sufficient evidence that Garza and Bernal breached their employment agreements with Amigo; (2) Amigo failed to produce legally sufficient evidence that SBS tortiously interfered with Amigo’s employment agreements with Garza and Bernal; and (3) Amigo withdrew its Lanham Act and misappropriation/unfair competition claims during the hearing on Appellees’ motions for judgment as a matter of law. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE and REMAND in part. … Amigo Broad., LP v. Spanish Broad. Sys., Inc.