PATracer

Nilssen: Sanctioned (Yet) Again

2010-1139 Nilssen v Wal-Mart
ND/IL 04-cv-5363
Judge Robert Gettlemen

Plaintiffs Ole Nilssen & Geo Foundation appeal from the order of Judge Gettlemen finding the case exceptional and awarding attorneys fees.

Exceptional Case Based On Inequitable Conduct During Prosecution

2010-1135 B-K Lighting v. Fresno Valves
CD/CA 06-cv-2825
Judge Margaret M. Morrow

Patentee B-K appeals from the order of Judge Margaret Morrow declaring the case exceptional under § 285 and awarding attorneys' fees.  The award was due to inequitable conduct before the PTO in failing to disclose certain prior art.  The Court declined to base the decision on B-K's alleged failure to disclose a co-inventor or on litigation misconduct.

CAFC: Law Firm Disqualified On Appeal

 2009-1171, -1558 Outside the Box v. Travel Caddy

The Federal Circuit has granted Outside the Box Innovations' (aka Union Rich) Motion to Disqualify King & Spalding from representing Travel Caddy on appeal.  Travel Caddy hired lawyers from King & Spalding to represent it on this appeal--however, another King & Spalding lawyer acted as an expert witness for Outside the Box at the trial court (on the issue of the reasonableness of attorneys' fees).  Outside the Box and Travel Caddy are adverse in the case.

Earlier Contract Case Now Bars Invalidity DJ

2010-1134 Cummins v. TAS Distribution
CD/CA 09-cv-1096
Judge Joe Billy McDade

Cummins appeals from the summary judgment of Judge McDade finding its declaratory judgment action for patent invalidity, misuse, and contract termination barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion (f/k/a res judicata). 

This is the third lawsuit between the parties since 2003, and all derive from a 1997 License Agreement from TAS to Cummins which included a license to TAS's 5,072,703 and 5,222,469 patents.

Target Can't Be Sued Under § 292 For Selling Mis-Marked Product

2010-1130 Inventorprise v. Target
SD/NY 09-cv-380
Judge Thomas McAvoy

Inventorprise appeals from the order of Judge Thomas McAvoy dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction its complaint against Target for false marking under 35 U.S.C. § 292. 

Although it sounds to me more like an issue under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, the court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because there was no colorable § 292 claim alleged against Target.

Outsourcing Doesn't Directly Infringe

2010-1125 Phoenix Solutions v. DirecTV Group
CD/CA 08-cv-984
Judge Mariana Pfaelzer

Phoenix appeals from the order of Judge Pfaelzer granting summary judgment of non-infringement to DirecTV relating to a series of patents generally directed to speech processing technology and natural language interactive voice response systems.  The accused systems include a website and telephone support lines that allegedly utilize the claimed technology.

Baker Hughes Gets PI Against Nalco...Again

2010-1124 Baker Hughes v. Nalco
SD/TX H-09-1885
Judge Kenneth Hoyt

Nalco appeals from the grant of a preliminary injunction by Judge Kenneth Hoyt against it from infringing 7,497,943, generally directed to a method of removing or transferring metals and/or amines from crude oil.  This is the second PI granted in the case: the first was vacated by the Federal Circuit in September because the first order was not sufficiently supported, particularly on the issue of irreparable harm.

Proposal Establishes On Sale Bar

2010-1121 Honeywell v Nikon
D/DE 04-cv-1337
Judge Joseph Farnan

Patentee Honeywell appeals from the order of Judge Farnan finding that claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 5,280,371 is invalid under the on-sale bar provisions of § 102(b).  The '371 patent s directed generally to a directional diffuser for a flat panel LCD of the type used, for example, in aircraft cockpit displays.

Prosthetic Sock Claims Invalid In Light Of Prosthetic Socks

2010-1119 Ohio Willow v. Thermo-Ply
ED/TX 07-cv-274
Judge Ron Clark

Patentee American Willow appeals from the summary judgment order of Judge Ron Clark finding the asserted claims of 7,291,182 invalid under §§ 102 and 103.  The '182 patent generally is directed at a coated fabric liner for prosthetics. 

The case also involved an intervenor seeking to be added as an inventor (denied), and Thermo-Ply's motion to add Walker Process counterclaims based on fraud before the PTO (denied).  The case was recently covered by Michael Smith over at EDTexweblog.

Juducial Estoppel Bars New Infringement Theory

2010-1118 Altair v. LEDdynamics
ED/MI 07-cv-13150
Judge George Caram Steeh

Plaintiff Altair appeals from the grant of summary judgment by Judge Steeh finding that LEDdynamics LED fluorescent tube replacement bulb did not infringe certain asserted claims of 7,049,761.  While the result appears fairly easy based on the court's claim construction, Altair developed a new infringement theory during summary judgment briefing that the court refused to consider under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

iLOR Must Pay Google's Legal Fees For Baseless Lawsuit

2010-1117 iLOR v Google
ED/KY 07-cv-109
Judge Joseph Hood

iLOR appeals from the finding of Judge Joseph Hood that its suit against Google was baseless and "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and that it should pay over $650,000 for Google's legal fees, costs and expenses.

Whose Use Is It Anyway?

2010-1110, 1131 Centillion Data v Qwest
SD/IN 04-cv-0073
Judge Larry McKinney

Both sides appeal from the summary judgment order of Judge Larry McKinney finding that Centillon's patent 5,287,270 is not invalid but is also not infringed.  The '270 patent is directed to billing systems that may be utilized by a service customer to manipulate usage and cost information from a service provider, such as a credit card or telecommunications company.  The accused Qwest systems include its Logic, eBill Companion, and Insite products.

Suing In Texas Doesn't Create Jurisdiction In California

2010-1107 Juniper Networks v. SSL Service
ND/CA 08-cv-5758
Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong

Juniper appeals the dismissal of its declaratory judgment complaint by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong based on a lack of personal jurisdiction over SSL.

Lilly's Gemzar Patent Invalid For Double-Patenting

2010-1105 Sun Pharma v. Eli Lilly
ED/MI 07-cv-15087
Judge George Caram Steeh

Eli Lilly appeals from the grant of partial summary judgment by Judge George Caram Steeh finding that certain claims of its US Patent No. 5,464,826 invalid for double patenting.  The case arose from Sun's ANDA filing seeking to market a generic form of GEMZAR, Lilly's gemcitibine cancer medication.  The matter is on appeal following the entry of this judgment under Rule 54(b).

StarLac Decision A Tough Pill For Takeda To Swallow

2010-1104 Takeda v Teva
D/DE 07-cv-331
Judge Sue Robinson

Takeda and Ethylpharm appeal from the judgment following a bench trial before Judge Sue Robinson that Teva's ANDA filing for a generic form of PREVACID Solutab^tm does not infringe 5,464,632 related to a pharmaceutical formulation for an oral disintegrating tablet.  These tablets allow the oral administration of an active ingredient in tablet form but without the typical requirement of water to assist in swallowing. 

Exela ANDA Infringes Allergan's Patents

2010-1102 Allergan v. Exela PharmSci
In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation
D/DE 07-md-1866
Judge Gregory Sleet

Defendant Exela appeals from the judgment following a bench trial that its ANDA for a brimonidine solution for glaucoma treatment infringed several patents of Allergan.  Allergan markets its product as ALPHAGAN P.  The court also rejected a myriad of invalidity arguments.

Abbyy's Foreign Entities Dodge California Lawsuit

2010-1100 Nuance v. Abbyy Software
ND/CA 08-cv-02912
Judge Jeffrey White

Patentee Nuance appeals from the order and judgment dismissing defendants Abbyy Production (a Russian entity) and Abbyy Software (a Cypriot entity) for failure to properly serve and for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The case continues against other Abbyy entities.

Ripmax RC Patent Does Crash And Burn

2009-1098 Horizon Hobby v. Ripmax
CD/IL 07-cv-2133
Judge Michael McCuskey

Patentee Ripmax appeals from the order and judgment of Judge Michael McCuskey confirming the jury verdict that the asserted claims of 6,983,128 were invalid as anticipated and obvious.  The patent relates to a radio control system for model cars, boats, airplanes, etc.  The case also involved claims of infringement, but those apparently were not tried and dropped before trial, although it is not clear from the docket what happened to them.

Teva's Generic VIGAMOX Dealt A Black Eye

2009-1097 Alcon Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals
D/DE 06-cv-234
Judge Sue Robinson

Defendant Teva appeals from the verdict following a bench trial before Judge Sue Robinson finding that its ANDA to market a generic version of VIGAMOX, a topical ophthalmic solution comprising the active ingredient moxifloxacin hydrochloride, infringes 6,716,830 and that the claims are valid.

When (Claimed) Size Matters

2010-1096 Biopolymer v. Immunocorp
D/MN 05-cv-536
Judge Joan Ericksen

Plaintiff Biopolymer appeals the grant of summary judgment by Judge Joan Ericksen finding that defendants did not infringe 5,702,719, related to an animal nutritional supplement with yeast cell wall extract.

The case involved 14 patents but, following the grant of partial summary judgments all around, the parties settled and dismissed all of the claims--except those related to the '719.

Enforcing Settlement Not A Federal Case

2010-1094 Kawasaki Hvy Indus v. Bombardier Rec
ED/TX 5:06-cv-222
Judge David Folsom

Kawasaki appeals from the order of Judge David Folson denying its FRCP 60(b)(3) motion to set aside a stipulated dismissal and to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement.  The dismissal was entered after the parties had resolved a patent infringement dispute and entered into a settlement agreement.

Prometheus And Natural Phenomena

2008-1403 Prometheus Lab v Mayo Collaborative
SD/CA 04-CV-1200
Judge John A. Houston

A fairly-well publicized case involving medical testing, Bilski, and "natural phenomena."  Our earlier write-up is here.  A representative claim from one of the patents covers:

1. A method of optimizing therapeutic efficacy for treatment of an immune mediated gastrointestinal disorder, comprising:

(a) administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to a subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder;

(b) determining the level of 6-thioguanine in said subject having said immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder wherein the levels of 6-thioguanine less than about 230 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to increase the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject and wherein the levels of 6-thioguanine greater than about 400 pmol per 8x108 red blood cells indicates a need to decrease the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject.

The district court invalidated the claim as merely reciting data gathering plus correlating a natural phenomena--whether the levels of 6-thioguanine in the patent are above or below a threshold amount thereby indicating a need to increase or decrease dosage.  The court noted that the claim did not actually require further treatment or an actual change in dosage.

Several amici have weighed in, and the case has been covered by Joe Mullen at The Prior Art and also over at Patently-O.

Oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, August 5, 2009 at 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 201.

Trading Tech Patents Put To The Test

2008-1392 Trading Tech Int'l v. eSpeed
ND/IL 04-cv-5312

Judge James B. Moran

Trading Tech ("TT") brought several suits, including this one against eSpeed and Ecco, alleging infringement of 6,766,304 and 6,772,132, both similarly directed at software used in electronic trading in the futures market.  Events below were well covered, as usual, by David Donoghue at  Chicago IP Litigation. 

TT is appealing the district court's rulings that eSpeed's redesigned products, Dual Dynamic and eSpeedometer, do not infringe, and from the court's granting of eSpeed's JMOL that the infringement of its original products was not willful.  eSpeed cross-appeals the court's rulings that TT's patents are not invalid and not unenforceable based on alleged secret prior use.

Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, August 4, 2009 at 10:00 P.M., Courtroom 201.

Late Terminal Disclaimer Was Too Late?

2009-1032 Boehringer Ingelheim v. Barr Labs
D/NJ 05-Cv-700 and 05-Cv-854
Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.

An interesting appeal concerning the interplay of terminal disclaimers, restrictions, and patent extensions.  The case involves efforts to market a generic version of pramipexole dihydrochloride, FDA approved for the treatment of idiopathic Parkinson's disease and Restless Leg Syndrome (RLS).  Defendants alleged that the asserted '812 patent was invalid for non-statutory double-patenting based on Boehringer's related '086 patent, which expired in 2006.

During trial and just before closing arguments, Boehringer filed a terminal disclaimer for the '812 patent, disclaiming the statutory term after expiration of the '086 patent.  It then argued that this not only avoided the double-patenting defense but also that the '812 was still in force due to an extension to that patent's term under § 156.  The Court disagreed, finding the terminal disclaimer ineffective and that the asserted claims of the '812 were invalid.  Aaron Barkoff at the Orange Book Blog previously wrote about the district court's decision here.

Oral argument is scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2009 at 1:00 P.M., Courtroom 402.

Cartner Takes Issue With Invalidating Claim Construction

2009-1097 Cartner v. Alamo Group
ND/OH 1:07-CV-1589
Judge Lesley Wells

A relatively straight-forward appeal of claim construction related to 5,197,284, claiming a system and method for decelerating a hydraulic motor.  Following construction in defendant's favor, plaintiff Cartner stipulated to invalidity and appealed.

Oral argument is scheduled for Monday, June 1, 2009 at 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 201.

En Banc: 271(f) and Cardiac Pacemaker

2007-1296 Cardiac Pacemaker v. St Jude
SD/IN 96-CV-1718
Judge David F. Hamilton

The Federal Circuit is hearing the case, en banc, directed to a single question:

Does 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) apply to method claims, as well as product claims?

The panel relied on Union Carbide Chems. & Plastics Tech. Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 425 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005) to answer in the affirmative, but some (St Jude, amici) argue that the Supreme Court's decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007)--finding that software instructions were not "components"--mandates a different result.

Oral argument is scheduled for Friday, May 29, 2009 at 2:00 P.M., Courtroom 201. 

In Brief: Purechoice v. Honeywell

2008-1482 Purechoice v. Honeywell
ED/TX 06-cv-00244
Judge T. John Ward

Purechoice appeals from the judgment of Judge Ward construing certain claim terms of RE38,985 as ambiguous and the claims invalid for indefiniteness.  The patent relates to a remote environmental monitoring system that collects air quality data about a site.  We previously covered the case here, as did Michael Smith from EDTexweblog.

Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 203.  When it becomes available, an mp3 of the oral argument should be here.

In Brief: Blackboard v. Desire2Learn

2008-1368 Blackboard v. Desire2Learn
ED/TX 9:06-CV-155
Judge Ron Clark

Cross-appeals involving Blackboard's 6,988,138 patent. The jury found Desire2Learn infringed claims 36-38, also finding those claims valid.  The court found claims 1-35 invalid for indefiniteness.  The '138 is also currently in reexams, with the PTO having preliminarily rejected claims 1-44.

Oral argument is scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 10:00 A.M., Courtroom 201.  When it becomes available, an mp3 of the oral argument should be here.

Court Maintains License Pending Coverage Dispute

2009-1168 Fairchild Semiconductor v. Third Dimension (3D)
D/ME 08-158
Judge D. Brock Hornby

Patentee/declaratory-judgment defendant 3D appeals from the grant by Judge D. Brock Hornby of a preliminary injunction prohibiting it from terminating a patent license to Fairchild.  The license relates to patent 5,216,275 and a related Chinese patent directed to superMOSFET technology for silicon semiconductors.

Court Rejects Collateral Attack On Patent Ownership

2009-1167 Enovsys v. Nextel
CD/CA 06-cv-5306
Judge Ronald Lew

Defendant Nextel appeals from the order and judgment of Judge Ronald Lew affirming the jury's verdict of infringement and $2.78 million in damages.  Enovsys asserted 6,560,461 against Nextel's iDEN system, relating to a system to protect and manage the disclosure of the precise location of a user's cell phone (e.g., the phone's GPS position).

Foreign Invention Sneaks In Under § 102(g)(2)

2009-1161 Solvay v. Honeywell
D/DE 06-557
Judge Sue Robinson

Plaintiff Solvay appeals from the grant of summary judgment of Judge Sue Robinson finding Solvay's 6,730,817 invalid under § 102(g)(2).  The court found that Honeywell--working with Russian scientists--had invented the process for manufacturing 1,1,1,3,3-pentaflouropropane (HFC-245fa, a blowing agent for rigid insulating foams) before Solvay.   The court concurrently found that Honeywell infringed claim 1 of the '817, although that summary judgment ruling has no immediate impact due to the invalidity.

Court Grants Injunction, Then Stays Case Pending Re-Exam

2009-1158 Automated Merchandising v. Crane
ND/WV 08-cv-97
Judge John Preston Bailey

Defendants appeal from the grant of a preliminary injunction by Judge John Bailey against the sale of their new vending machines.  The 4 patents in suit relate to "optical vend detection systems" in vending machines, devices that are supposed to determine whether or not the selected item has actually dispensed and, if not, refund the money.  No more rocking the machine to free stuck Frito's. 

Post Infringement Reasonable Royalty

2009-1154 Amado v. Microsoft
CD/CA 03-242
Judge David Carter

Plaintiff Amado appeals from the order of Judge David Carter setting the reasonable royalty for Microsoft's post-verdict sale of infringing products and reducing the number of units for which the royalty is owed. 

Court Sticks Needle Patent With Invalidity

2009-1152 MBO Labs v. Becton
D/MA 03-cv-10038
Judge Joseph Tauro

Plaintiff MBO appeals from Judge Joseph Tauro's grant of summary judgment finding that RE 36,885 invalid for violating the recapture rule, 35 U.S.C. § 251. 

Technical Difficulties

Which is a term of art meaning "our IT people don't know what's wrong with the document server."  The server where we store the pdfs of court orders, briefs, etc. isn't responding, so most of the "More reading" links will not work.  I have set up a temporary (hopefully) Google Site on which to store new documents until IT gets things fixed.

UPDATE: The server is back up for now.  Send me an email if you have problems or find any broken links.

And now for something completely different.

KSR Breaks Bundle Splitting Patent

2009-1151 Geo Martin v. Alliance Machine
ND/CA 07-cv-692
Judge William Alsup

Plaintiff Martin appeals the grant by Judge William Alsup of defendant's Rule 50 motion finding 6,655,566 invalid as obvious.  The ruling comes after a 2 week jury trial resulted in a hung jury.  The court employed KSR and found the patent, directed to a bundle breaker for breaking corrugated cardboard, roofing shingles, etc., merely an obvious combination of known elements performing known functions.  Although there was some evidence of nonobviousness in the secondary considerations, the court dismissed these as minor or inconsequential.

Catching Up-Week of January 3, part 2

If part 1 was the ED/Michigan post, part 2 is SD/New York as 2 of the 3 cases come from there.  2009-1146 (SD/NY) is summary judgment of non-infringement; 2009-1147 (SD/NY) is summary judgment of equitable estoppel; and 2009-1149 (D/DE) is an "exceptional" finding and award of attorney's fee.

Catching Up-Week of January 3, part 1

Judge Avern Cohn and his clerks must have been busy last fall as a couple appeals from the first week of 2009 are from his court.  FYI, later this year Judge Cohn will hit 30 years on the bench in the Eastern District of Michigan. 

The four cases in Part 1 consist of 3 claim construction cases and one case on damages.

Catching Up-December 2008

December cases...

Catching Up-November 2008

Okay, so my efforts to catch up have fallen behind schedule, and now I resort to merely listing the appeals filed in November and December--then I can actually start covering the January cases.  Here are November's cases:

Catching Up-Week of October 27th

Another is the series of posts attempting to catch up.  A couple marking cases: one sufficiency and one false, and inventorship.

Third Parties And Protective Orders-Can You Handle The Truth?

In patent cases non-parties are regularly called upon to produce documents or give deposition testimony--material or information that is often confidential to some degree.  Most of the time this discovery goes off without too much trouble: a subpoena is issued, lawyers negotiate, and the discovery had.  Typically the producing party takes advantage of the Protective Order in the action, designating the documents or deposition testimony as "Confidential" or "Attorneys Eyes Only" or with some similar language.

But what happens when there is a problem later in the case, especially when another party challenges the designation or violates the protective order?  I am involved in a case right now in the District of Colorado which highlights a lurking danger for these non-parties.

When You Need A Friend At Court

Everyone needs friends.  And what better time to have a friend with you is there than when arguing at the Federal Circuit, especially if your friend is also a "friend of the court," or amicus curiae?

I have worked on quite a few amicus briefs, both in private practice and during law school while working at the Washington Legal Foundation.  They are (usually) fun to write and are (usually) great to have on your side because they can make arguments or points that you can't or won't (or don't have room to include).

However, I never gave much thought to finding an amicus to join my side in an appeal until my opponents in a pending Federal Circuit case started trolling around looking for one (or two, or three....) to help them.  More on that in a later post, but that process got me thinking about who is filing these briefs and how to go about getting them to help you.

Catching Up-Week of October 20th

As part of our recently announced plan to "catch-up" on coverage of cases, here are brief summaries of the appeals filed during the week of 20 October 2008 that we didn't already cover.

I expect a series of these Catching Up posts over the next few weeks until we get through December's filings, and then we will resume our regular coverage.  Josh has also promised some On The Radar posts soon, so the pressure is on.

Coming Soon To PATracer

Happy New Year, and thanks to everyone with reads, subscribes, comments, and otherwise uses PATracer.  When we started the site nearly a year ago we wanted to report on pending Federal Circuit patent cases--providing information on newly filed cases, the briefs, and oral argument.

With 2008 in the books, Josh and I have reviewed PATracer and feel a few changes are needed to better meet our goals.

Robert Cohn Was Once Middleweight Boxing Champion Of Princeton

2009-1031 Marrin v. Griffin
CD/CA 07-239
Judge George Wu

Patentees' Jeff and Claudia Griffin appeal from Judge George Wu's grant of summary judgment finding claims 1-4 of their 5,154,448 patent invalid under 102 and 103.  The patent relates to a label that allows users to write without using a pen or the like--Marrin is the founder of Etch-It, a company that makes cups and other products with a label on which you can write using your finger.

In this case involving the Griffins I almost went with a photo from Family Guy--e.g.,  Brian scratching something--but I could use a Family Guy shot every day (hmm, now there is a theme for next week).  But how often can you use John Waters, a fellow film maker whose early 1980's Polyester had scratch-and-sniff cards and Divine?

Christmas Won't Be Christmas Without Any Presents

2009-1027 Kara Technology v. Stamps.com
CD/CA 05-cv-1890
Judge Consuelo Marshall

Plaintiff Kara appeals from the orders of Judge Consuelo Marshall denying its post-trial motions and from the jury verdict of non-infringement in favor of Stamps.com.  The asserted patents were 6,505,179 and 6,735,575.

Stamps.com is an online postage stamp business, essentially an alternative to a stamp metering machine.  The accused product is Netstamps pre version 5.

Opening line from Little Women, Louisa May Alcott.  Nothing to do with the case, but I am writing this on Christmas Eve . . . . and I still have some shopping to do.

"Now What I Want Is, Facts." On The Radar: October 2008

Hard Times by Charles Dickens. 

Which brings us to the cold, hard facts of October 2008 new filings of patent cases (aka NOS 830 in PACER-speak).

An interesting item is Sanofi-Aventis v. Genentech, filed in the Eastern District of Texas.  I have not seen too many pharma cases down in Marshall et al.--probably because a reputation for a fast docket and big damages is not meaningful to pharma patentees already enjoying an automatic 30 month stay (and not having much in the way of money damages).   This case is a little different as it is not the typical ANDA action with pioneer versus generic, but rather a patentee against a former licensee who apparently did not or will not stop selling. 

I wonder if more pharma cases would go down to ED Texas if it slowed down . . . or offered a slow, pharma track?  Venue could be a problem in ANDA cases though.

All This Happened, More Or Less.

2009-1024 Responsible Me v. Evenflo
SD/FL 06-61736
Judge Daniel Hurley

Plaintiff Responsible Me appeals from the summary judgment decision of Judge Daniel Hurley finding that Evenflo did not infringe 7,134,714, generally directed to a detachable sub-tray for use with trays from car seats, highchairs, strollers and similar seats.

Despite the post's title, not much happened in this case, especially when compared to many other patent cases such as the Taurus.  Still, I had to use it because it is a great line, opening Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five.

I also like the opening line from Feed by M.T. Anderson, courtesy of my nephew's collection.  Its a "dystopian novel of the postcyberpunk genre" where cerebral Internet implants pipe pop-up ads directly to your brain:

We went to the moon to have fun, but the moon turned out to completely suck.

This Is A Blog Post About A Patent Case

2009-1023 Amgen v. ARIAD
D/DE 06-259
Judge Mary Pat Thynge

ARIAD appeals from the Orders of Judge Mary Pay Thynge granting Amgen summary judgment of non-infringement on ARIAD's US Patent No. 6,410,516.  This is the same patent, directed to inhibiting or reducing NF-κB activity in cells, that ARIAD successfully used against Lilly, reported here.

The Court's opinions begin, "This is a patent case."  While not as compact as "Call me Ishmael," it is still a classic opening line, although it probably should be limited to use in patent cases. 

Here are a few other great opening lines of literature with the potential for judicial use:

In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly fishing.  Norman Maclean, A River Runs Through It.  Maybe a separation of church and state case. 

The village of Holcomb stands on the high wheat plains of western Kansas, a lonesome area that other Kansans call "out there."  Truman Capote, In Cold Blood.  I guess pretty much any case from that tiny plot of Finney County.

It was a pleasure to burn.  Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451.  Arson.

A screaming comes across the sky.  Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow.  Struck by falling satellite or a catapult accident . . . hey, it happens.

Marley was dead, to begin with.
Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol.  A murder.  Of Marley preferably, just to have the sentence make sense. 

Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed.  James Joyce, Ulysses.  Um, a shaving mishap . . . on 16 June?