Newsletter presents concise summaries of important developments in U.S. patent law occurring during the month of October, 2008.
1) En banc Federal Circuit limits patent eligible subject matter for processes patents;
2) Reasonable non-infringement claim construction position defeats charge of willful infringement;
3) District Court rules that Seagate precludes enhanced damages for post-filing conduct;
4) Doctrine of equivalents may not be available for limitations using the term ?about?;
5) District court rejects PTO?s methodology of calculating term extensions for PTO delays for short changing patentees;
6) Collection of technical specifications having same publisher but different publication dates was not a ?single? prior art reference for purposes of anticipation;
7) Anticipation not shown where it is necessary to combine separate disclosures within the same reference to arrive at the claimed invention;
8) Patentee need not actually know of suspected infringement to give ?actual notice? of its patent rights for purposes of § 287(a);
9) Nexus to show commercial success must be tied to differences between prior art and claimed invention;
10) Patentee bears a production burden to prove entitlement to § 120 priority, but does not bear a burden of persuasion;
11) Absence of working examples supported finding that prior art patent did not enable later-claimed invention for purposes of anticipation;
12) No antitrust violation from reverse payment by patentee to accused infringer to not enter market or challenge validity of patent; and
13) USPTO commences a Pilot Patent Prosecution Highway Program with Danish Patent Office
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