Developments in U.S. patent law for the month of April 2008. Topics include: 1) Even where “ordinary meaning” applies, district courts must formally construe claim term if parties have a genuine dispute as to the scope of the claim; 2) Later-developed equivalent may be foreseeable for purposes of prosecution history estoppel if it is “reasonably obvious” from the prior art; 3) Tacking of laches periods may be proper where products are the same or similar; 4) Use of functional language in apparatus claim, and recitation of structure in a method claim, does not improperly mix statutory classes; 5) Express license to component of patented invention created an implied license to sell the component to anybody; 6) Sale “f.o.b. Canada” to U.S. purchaser is a sale “within” the U.S. under § 271(a); 7) Patentee’s burden to prove entitlement to § 120 priority; 8) Covenant not to sue did not moot controversy in ANDA context for declaratory judgment claim; 9) Flaws in pre-suit investigation not relevant to “objective recklessness” inquiry for bad faith enforcement claims; 10) Assignee taking patent subject to a prior nonexclusive licensee not bound by arbitration clause contained in the license agreement; 11) Multi-district panel cites crowded docket conditions in E.D. Texas as a reason for not transferring a centralized case to that forum; 12) Federal Circuit finds noninfringement opinion of counsel defeated willful infringement charge; 13) Denying summary judgment of no willful infringement in view of Seagate; 14) Developments in the PTO.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Intellectual Property Updates
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Robert Matthews, Jr., Matthews Patent-Law Consulting | Attorney Advertising