Latest Posts › Prior Art

Share:

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Apple, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors -- including objective evidence of secondary considerations -- must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the...more

BakerHostetler Patent Watch: Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.

Where a court holds a claim obvious without making findings of secondary considerations, the lack of specific consideration of secondary considerations ordinarily requires a remand....more

Patent Watch: Regents of the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Med. Corp.

In disclaiming claim coverage in light of certain prior art, the applicant does not thereby act as a lexicographer, redefining individual words....more

Patent Watch: Alexsam, Inc. v. IDT Corp.

Expert testimony [may be] required not only to explain what the prior art references disclosed, but also to show that a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine them in order to achieve the claimed...more

Patent Watch: Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Watson Pharm., Inc.

On April 16, 2013, in Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Watson Pharm., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Schall, Prost) reversed the district court's summary judgment that U.S. Reissue Patent No....more

Patent Watch: Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

On April 4, 2013, in Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Moore, O'Malley) reversed the district court's judgment that Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corp. infringed U.S....more

Patent Watch: In Re Morsa

On April 5, 2013, in In re Morsa, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader, Lourie, O'Malley*) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision...more

Patent Watch: Rexnord Indus., LLC v. Kappos

"[A]nticipation by inherent disclosure is appropriate only when the reference discloses prior art that must necessarily include the unstated limitation, [or the reference] cannot inherently anticipate the claims."...more

Patent Watch: C.W. Zumbiel Co. v. Kappos

[T]he preamble constitutes a limitation when the claim(s) depend on it for antecedent basis, or when it "is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body." On December 27, 2012, in C.W. Zumbiel Co. v....more

Patent Watch: Fox Group, Inc. v. Cree, Inc.

"[A]lthough § 102(g) prior art must be somehow made available to the public in order to defeat another patent, a § 102(g) prior inventor is under no obligation to file a patent application." Commercialization has been relied...more

12/5/2012  /  Patents , Prior Art
10 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!