In a decision that has gotten attention from national, non-legal media (e.g., see these articles from Businessweek and CNet), Judge Gerald Bruce Lee of the Eastern District of Virginia has entered two orders that amount to a complete win for Google.
Continue Reading...Ask a member of GRIPLA (the Greater Richmond Intellectual Property Law Association) about “second life” a couple days ago, and chances are they would have thought it was either an introduction to a conversation about finding another career or the beginning of a pitch about how to reach the great legal Shangri –La known as work-life balance.
No longer.
Continue Reading...Summary Judgment Granted of Noninfringment
By Megan Rahman
In a March 10, 2010, Judge Smith granted summary judgment of noninfringement in the case of American Piledriving Equipment, Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:08cv547 (E.D. Virginia). Plaintiff American Piledriving Equipment (“APE”) claimed that the Defendant Geoquip infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,355,964 (the “964 Patent”), which involves an assembly for pile driving. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment – Geoquip filed a motion for summary judgment of noninfringment and invalidity of the ‘964 Patent and APE filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement.
Of the twenty-seven claims recited in the ‘964 Patent, APE claimed that Geoquip’s Model 250 and Model 500 vibratory pile driving devices infringed 16 of them. The court had conducted a Markman hearing in December and the parties had filed their summary judgment motions in January. With no dispute regarding the configuration of the accused devices or Geoquip’s use and rental of the devices, all involved agreed that the matter was ripe for summary judgment.
Relying on the claim construction, the court determined that the claims did not encompass either the Model 250 or the Model 500 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. As a result, the court found no infringement of the independent claims of the ‘964 Patent, granting Geoquip’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringment and denying APE’s summary judgment motion of infringement. Finally, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss Geoquip’s counterclaim of invalidity as moot in light of its holding of noninfringement, thereby denying Geoquip’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity.
One comment on this case is that despite holding a claim construction hearing some months prior to the summary judgment briefing, the court was still left to determine the meaning of at least one additional term not used within the claims of the ‘964 Patent but used within the specification in order to reach its ruling.
Troutman Sanders held an informative seminar yesterday concerning China's Changing Business Environment. The seminar provided an overview of recent changes in Chinese law. Any corporation working directly or indirectly with China should be concerned as the legal and business landscape there continues to evolve. The seminar focused primarily on China's latest legal developments in mergers and aquisitions, forming a business entity, foreign direct investment, and compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Chinese anti-bribery laws. The following Troutman Sanders attorneys from our Shanghai office presented the material:
Edward Epstein, Partner and Office Managing Partner of Troutman Sanders’ Shanghai Office
Richard Grams, Partner, Shanghai Office
John Xia, Senior Legal Consultant, Shanghai Office
We have a limited number of books, "Legal Guide to doing Business in China," still available from the seminar. The book is an overview of the legal framework for making foreign investments in China. Send an email to Bernard.Pike@troutmansanders.com including your name and address and we will send you a copy.
Enter keywords:
