LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
• Springer v. Adkins

CYBERSPACE LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
• Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp.

DRUGS & BIOTECH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT, REMEDIES
• E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C.

LATEST SUMMARIES

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW
Springer v. Adkins, No. 2007-3180
A decision granting respondent an increased annuity payment under the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS) is affirmed where: 1) retirement under 5 U.S.C. section 8451 does not incorporate the age and years of service requirements of section 8412 except where explicitly stated; and 2) the FERS disability annuity provisions require that a firefighter annuitant's benefits be the greater of that which is computed under sections 8452(a) and 8415(d). Read more...

CYBERSPACE LAW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 2007-1250
In a patent infringement action relating to computer networking systems and methods that provide shared memory systems and services, summary judgment for defendant-Oracle is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the disputed claim term "local" to mean a "computer device that is directly attached to a single computer's processor." Read more...

DRUGS & BIOTECH, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., No. 2007-1280
In a patent case involving plaintiffs-Aventis' drug Lovenox, a drug effective in preventing blood clotting while minimizing the possibility of hemorrhaging, a ruling holding plaintiff's patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in determining that half-life comparisons were intended to show compositional differences to address the anticipation rejection; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence that comparison of half-lives at different doses to demonstrate a difference in property was routine practice; and 3) there was sufficient evidence to showing an intent to deceive on the part of plaintiff's expert. Read more...

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT, REMEDIES
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., No. 2007-1568
In a patent infringement case brought by DuPont, an order denying its motion for a preliminary injunction against defendant is vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings where the district court: 1) abused its discretion in finding that a substantial question as to validity existed because of uncertainty regarding the priority date; and 2) did not reach the parties' remaining arguments as to validity and enforceability as well as the remaining preliminary injunction factors. Read more...