Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne v. Broetje Automation USA, Inc., No. 2012-1038 (May 21, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 5,011,339 and 5,143,216

Key point:

• Violation of the best mode requirement requires intentional concealment; innocent or inadvertent failure of disclosure does not of itself invalidate a patent.

Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corporation, No. 2012-1063 (May 20, 2013) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,000,608

Key point:

• A claim limitation reciting a “standard, unmodified device” may help to highlight the utility of an invention, but can also present challenges to proving infringement.

Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2012-1428 (May 20, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. 7,348,362; 7,462,645; 7,465,756; 7,473,710; and 7,541,385

Key point:

• Even in the absence of a confidentiality agreement, a clinical trial is not necessarily a public use bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b).

Aventis Pharmaceuticals v. Amino Chemicals Ltd. No. 2011-1135 (May 20, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 5,750,703

Key point:

• The same descriptive phrase (e.g., “substantially pure”) may be construed differently, when the descriptive phrase is applied to different elements within a patent.

Douglas Dynamics, LLC, v. Buyers Products Company, No. 2011-1291 (May 21, 2013) (precedential) (2-1) Patent Nos. Re. 35,700; 5,353,530; and 6,944,978

Key points:

•  A general phrase such as “connected to” may encompass both direct and indirect connections
• A patentee may still prove irreparable harm for purposes of an injunction, even when the patentee is making a profit and is gaining in market share relative to the infringing products.