Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

It's been busy. The court has issued three precedential opinions in the last five days. They are:

• M. Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Co., Inc.: The Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of M. Eagles, holding that "there was no clear and convincing evidence demonstrating an intent to engage in inequitable conduct" by Fisher Tooling. For more on this case, read CAFC: Gross Negligence Does Not Constitute Inequitable Conduct.

• Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp.: The court affirmed the trial court's decision to award summary judgment in favor of Apotex, agreeing that an earlier patent anticipated the one at issue in the case. For an analysis of this case, read Earlier Patent on Paxil Anticipated Product by Process Claims for Making Paxil.

• Lawman Armor Corp. v. Winner Int'l, LLC: The court upheld a finding of no infringement by the lower court "because each of the alleged 'points of novelty' of the patented design was disclosed in the prior art." The appellate court rejected the patentee's contention that the combination "of the many non-novel 'points of novelty' itself was an additional 'point of novelty.'" For more on this case, read Design Patent Fails Point of Novelty Test, and Combination of Visual Elements from Prior Art Does Not Create New Point of Novelty for Design Patent.