ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Patent Law

: Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione Scores Total Victory for its Clients

By Philip Brooks

ADVERTISEMENTS

The following is excerpted from an October 17, 2008 PRNewswire item that appeared at automotive.com:

Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione, one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the United States, today announced a final judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of its clients, ZF Friedrichshafen AG (ZF), ArvinMeritor, Inc. and ZF Meritor LLC, distributors of the FreedomLine(TM) heavy duty truck transmission systems, in a patent infringement case begun in 2003. The jury verdict marks the last step in a complete victory in defending against eleven patents originally asserted by Eaton Corporation.

Eaton, an Ohio-based manufacturer of automotive and truck parts, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Judge George C. Steeh presided over the trial, which began on September 23, 2008. Brinks clients, ZF and ArvinMeritor, challenged Eaton's assertion that the FreedomLine transmission infringed claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,624,350, which relates to a method of automated clutch control and calibrations and also challenged the validity of those claims, as well as claims 1, 3-6, 12 and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,664,458, which relates to a rolling-start control system for semi-automated mechanical transmissions.

After a seven-day jury trial, the jury found for ZF and ArvinMeritor on all counts. On October 16, the court entered final judgment that: 1) claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,624,350 not infringed; 2) claims 8 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,624,350 invalid; and, 3) claims 1, 3-6, 12, and 14-17 of U.S. Patent No. 5,664,458 invalid. The court had previously entered summary judgment that a third patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,899,279 is invalid.

Read the full article here.

Full post as published by Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates on October 17, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0124 secs (new cache)