GTV Secures Summary Judgment Win for client Global Sailing

GTV client Global Sailing Ltd., a New Zealand company which owns the right to license the manufacture and sale of certain Laser class sailboats, was recently awarded partial summary judgment by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer in the District of Connecticut (3:13-cv-00297).

Global Sailing sought partial summary judgment on liability against two defendant entities which manufactured and/or sold sailboats under certain Builders’ Agreements. These Builders’ Agreements set forth the licensing terms between the parties. The lawsuit was initiated after the defendants failed to comply with their obligations under the Agreements, and then, when terminated, failed to comply with post-termination obligations while continuing to sell Laser sailboats.

Judge Meyer stated that each of the Agreements was properly terminated, and that the defendants failed to comply with many post-termination obligations. These included improperly contesting Global Sailing’s rights to the Laser and failing to negotiate a sale of Laser plugs, molds and tooling back to Global. He also ruled that there was no evidence presented to support defendants’ assertions that Global had materially breached, or, indeed, breached at all, its obligations under the Builders’ Agreements.

GTV attorneys active in this matter included J. Kevin Grogan, Jeffrey E. Schiller, Kevin H. Vanderleeden, Raymond T. Zenkert and Joseph I. Romagnano.

INTA 2019 BOSTON

GTV would like to thank our INTA colleagues, friends, and family for joining us at a Red Sox game.  Fun was had by all and it was great to catch up!  Looking forward to seeing you all in Singapore in 2020!  Go Sox!

GTV Wins Appeal of Indefiniteness and Obviousness Rejections

In a recent appeal decision reversing all major points of rejection, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found the claims at issue to be nonobvious and definite in scope.

The claims were directed towards a disposable chromatography system, and methods thereof, that utilize a particulate slurry as the stationary phase/filtration medium within a flexible container.  In particular, the claimed flexible container is separated into a filtration portion and a drainage portion by a separation barrier/frit filter.  In operation, the particulate slurry, i.e., the stationary phase, is restricted from entering the drainage portion by the separation barrier while fluids, i.e., a mobile phase, are allowed to pass through the separation barrier to the drainage portion.  The separation barrier further includes a nozzle which fluidizes the particulate slurry by directing the mobile phase towards the particulate slurry at a high velocity to dislodge some of the particulate slurry.

In its decision, the PTAB agreed with GTV’s argument that the specification makes clear to those of ordinary skill in the art, that the term “high velocity” is a velocity sufficient for a mobile phase to fluidize the filtration medium.  The PTAB further agreed with GTV’s position that the Examiner was improperly reading a solid monolithic filter on the claimed filtration medium, and that the Examiner’s arguments regarding combinability of the cited references were fundamentally flawed.  

Accordingly, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s holding stating that “…the rejection fails to articulate a sufficient reason with some rational underpinning that would have prompted a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine [the references] in the manner claimed…”.

Notably, the Examiner had an overall allowance rate of 13% at the time of the filing of the Notice of Appeal.