Date	Docket No	Origin	Case Name	P/N	Case Summary
15 May 2006	05-1314	DCT US District Court for Central District of California	Applied Medical Resources v. United States Surgical	P	District court had granted summary judgment of non-infringement based upon the construction of a means-plus-function clause. The CAFC reviewed the claims construction de-novo, vacated the summary judgement of non-infringement and remanded to the District Court for further review based upon the new claim construction.
12 May 2006	05-1510	DCT US District Court for Central District of California	Revolution Eyewear, Inc., et al. v. Aspex Eyewear, et al.	N
17 Jan 2006	04-1559	DCT US District Court for Northern District of Texas	Lamps Plus, Inc, et al. v. Dolan, et al. N	N
10 Jan 2006	04-1475o	DCT	Union Carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co.	P	Petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Judge Lourie, Michel and Linn dissent: “Supplying a component for use in practicing a patented process or method is not what Congress had in mind in enacting § 271(f). A material for use in practicing a process is not a component of that process.”
10 Jan 2006	04-1265	DCT US District Court for Central District of California	Aspex Eyewear, Inc., et al. v. Miracle Optics, Inc, et al.	P
05 Jan 2006	05-1062o	DCT US District Court for Western District of Washington	Lizardtech, et al. v. Earth Resource Mapping, et al. [Revised Order]	P	This case originally decided on 04 October 2005.  A request had been filed for an en banc review of this case.  Such petition was denied.  Judge Rader wrote a very extensive review of the jurisprudence of the written description requirement and lamenting the very confused state of the law: “This court’s written description jurisprudence has become opaque to the point of obscuring other areas of this court’s law.”
05 Jan 2006	04-1553	DCT US District Court for Eastern District of California	Fieldturf International, Inc., et al. v. Sprinturf, Inc., et al.	P	Issue of whether a bid by Sportfields in response to an RFP for a synthetic grass athletic field was an offer for sale when the FRP clearly specified a product that was covered by patents owned by Fieldturf.  Also addressed issues of whether enforcing a patent was a basis for a state tortuous inference claim and whether such conduct was justification for declaring the case exceptional for purposes of attorney’s fees
04 Jan 2006	05-1334	DCT US District Court for Eastern District of Michigan	Golden Eagle USA, LLC v. Consolidated Industrial Corp., et al.	N	Issue as to whether plaintiff Golden Eagle had “all substantial rights” to the patent and therefore had standing. Remanded to District Court for determination of plaintiff’s standing.