Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending November 5, 2010
AstraZeneca LP et al. v. Apotex, Inc., et al., No. 2009-1381 (November 1, 2010) (precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,598,603 and 6,899,099
- The specific intent required to show induced infringement may be established by instructions on the label of a product, even if such instructions were required by a third party (here, the FDA) for obtaining product approval.
Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. , No. 2009-1576, -1594 (Nov. 4, 2010) (precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,092,194, 6,804,780, 7,058,822, 6,357,010, and 7,185,361
- To infringe a claim that recites capability and not actual operation, an accused device need only be capable of operating in the recited mode. Computer programs are “capable of operating in the recited mode” if a user can activate the recited mode without having to modify the computer program itself.
In re Oracle Corporation , Miscellaneous Docket No. 951 (Nov. 1, 2010) (non-precedential)
- The proper analysis in deciding a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) must not merely consider the parties’ private expression of venue choice, but must also include consideration of private and public interest factors.