Patentee Johns Hopkins loses at CAFC
Johns Hopkins University lost big time at the CAFC: Because the jury’s finding of infringement was not supported by
evidence, we reverse the court's denial of Datascope’s motion for JMOL of non-infringement and remand to the district court for entry of a final judgment in favor of Datascope consistent with this opinion.
The attorneys for the losing parties: Kenneth P. George, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, of New York, New York,
argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Ira E. Silfin, Marc J. Jason, and Rebecca R. Eisenberg.
A factor in the decision, patentee's expert testimony got chucked: We therefore do not
accept Valji’s opinion in deciding whether substantial evidence exists to support the jury’s
finding of infringement. See Wechsler v. Macke Int’l Trade, Inc., 486 F.3d 1286, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (expert opinion contrary to the factual evidence need not be credited).
**One aside:
The fact that Datascope's device is separately patentable does not preclude a
finding of infringement. See Nat'l Presto Indus. v. West Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1191
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
evidence, we reverse the court's denial of Datascope’s motion for JMOL of non-infringement and remand to the district court for entry of a final judgment in favor of Datascope consistent with this opinion.
The attorneys for the losing parties: Kenneth P. George, Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP, of New York, New York,
argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were Ira E. Silfin, Marc J. Jason, and Rebecca R. Eisenberg.
A factor in the decision, patentee's expert testimony got chucked: We therefore do not
accept Valji’s opinion in deciding whether substantial evidence exists to support the jury’s
finding of infringement. See Wechsler v. Macke Int’l Trade, Inc., 486 F.3d 1286, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (expert opinion contrary to the factual evidence need not be credited).
**One aside:
The fact that Datascope's device is separately patentable does not preclude a
finding of infringement. See Nat'l Presto Indus. v. West Bend Co., 76 F.3d 1185, 1191
(Fed. Cir. 1996).
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:17 PM
1 Comments:
The primary alleged offenses are two: first, that these patents impede scientific research, and second that commercial licenses are too high. The first allegation is supported by complaints from scientists about the material transfer agreements (MTAs) associated with licensing stem cells covered by the Thomson patents from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF).
----------------
jones
Internet Marketing
Post a Comment
<< Home