Newsletter presents concise summaries of important developments in U.S. patent law occurring during the month of July, 2008. Developments include: 1) District court imposes requirement that parties prove a need for claim construction before it will construe claim term; 2) E.D. Texas jury asked to determine future royalty rate in addition to determining damages for past infringement; 3) Differences in second product did not avoid claim preclusion where those differences did not take second product outside the literal scope of a claim limitation; 4) Implementing prior art computer auction system on internet was an obvious adaptation of existing technology; 5) Method claim not infringed under a theory of joint infringement where the accused infringer did not control user’s inputting of data into the computer system; 6) Laches barred alleged omitted inventor’s correction of inventorship claim; 7)“Comprising,” as a transition term, may not trump a surrender of claim scope evident from the prosecution history; 8) Failure to provide sufficient context of accused product so Federal Circuit could see how claim construction rulings could impact infringement determination required remand for clarification; 9) Duty to investigate accused product before filing suit does not apply to ANDA litigation; 10) PTO commences pilot Triway Patent Prosecution Highway with EPO and JPO; 11) Peer Review Pilot Program extended; 12) PTO cautions applicants regarding export control laws and outsourcing of patent prosecution work to foreign countries.
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