Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term "protection of investments" in 35 U.S.C. §252. John Bean Techs. Corp. v. Morris & Assocs., Inc., No. 2020-1090, 2021 WL 641987 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2021). This section outlines the boundaries of the court's equitable powers to absolve liability from infringement for substantively altered patents. The court affirmed the summary judgment decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas that granted equitable intervening rights to Morris & Associate Inc.'s (Morris) against John Bean Technologies Corporation's (John Bean) infringement claims based on its reissued patent. Rejecting John Bean's argument that "protection of investment" is limited to monetary investments made and recouped before the reissue certificate, the Federal Circuit determined that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by considering factors other than money invested before the reissue and granting Morris the defense of equitable intervening rights.
This case is about two bitter rivals. John Bean is an equipment manufacturer that makes poultry and seafood processing machines. At the core of the controversy is the auger-type poultry chiller, a formidable machine that processes poultry in large scale. John Bean's U.S. Patent No. 6,397,622 (the '622 patent) covers this particular invention. Morris is John Bean's only U.S. competition in the industrial poultry chiller market.
A demand letter in the summer of 2002 was the seed of this near-decade long battle — leading to two trips to the Federal Circuit. In that letter, Morris asserted that John Bean's '622 patent was invalid in view of prior art. John Bean did not respond. Morris thereafter developed poultry chillers that incorporate features of the '622 patent and has been selling them since, with success.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The business-law issue of whether and when a corporate defendant is considered distinct from its affiliated entities emerged on December 11 at the U.S. Supreme Court, with the justices confronting whether a non-defendant’s affiliate’s revenue can be part of a judge’s calculation of the monetary remedy for the corporate defendant’s infringement of a trademark.
The most forward-thinking companies embrace AI with complete confidence because they have created governance programs that serve as guardrails for this incredible new technology. Effective governance ensures AI consistently aligns with an organization’s best interests, safeguarding against potential risks while unlocking its full potential.
It’s time for our annual poll of experts on what they expect 2025 to bring in legal tech, including generative AI (of course), e-discovery, and more.
AI’s rapid market proliferation and regulatory expansion mirrors privacy’s, and businesses should model their contractual AI compliance on the successes of privacy law’s DPA and BAA.
Traditional keyword strategies and ranking tactics are losing ground to a more dynamic approach in which optimizing for search now means optimizing for every platform and user interaction. This evolution is appropriately being called “Search Everywhere Optimization.” The redefined SEO reflects how AI is not just changing how people find information but also how businesses need to think about visibility in an increasingly connected digital ecosystem.