Claim Construction

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Review - December 2014

Patent Claims on Media Distribution Over Internet Not Patentable - In ULTRAMERCIAL, INC. v. HULU, LLC, Appeal No. 2010-1544, the Federal Circuit affirmed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because a...more

Supreme Court Corner: Q4 2014

KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERPRISES, INC. Patent Licensing - Cert. Pending - Issue: Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects...more

Fetal Diagnostics Patent Claims Fall in Inter Partes Review

Post grant inter partes review proceedings have lowered the hurdle to invalidate U.S. patents. The “broadest reasonable construction” of the claims and the lower burden to prove invalidity (by a preponderance of the evidence)...more

Myriad Disappointments for Biotech, but Hope Remains

CAFC extends the reach of subject-matter ineligibility under Myriad - Following Myriad Genetic’s 2013 loss at the Supreme Court (Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013), herein “Myriad...more

USPTO: Over Half of Applications/Declarations Studied Over-Claim Covered Goods/Services

It has been the practice of some brand owners to include more goods in a use-based trademark application or declaration than were actually being used. Under TTAB precedent such as Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc., 67 USPQ2d 1205,...more

Supreme Court 2014 Patent Preview

On average, the U.S. Supreme Court historically hears fewer than one patent case each term. For example, in the 14 years between 1982 and 1995, the Court decided only five patent cases. In the seven years between 1995 and...more

Judge Forrest finds patentee’s claim constructions to be overly broad, and lacking specification support

Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus B.V. Case Number: 1:14-cv-01650-KBF - On March 14, 2014 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Regeneron”) commenced this action against Merus B.V. (“Merus”) and Ablexis LLC...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Reddy v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

Decision Date: November 18, 2014 - Court: District of Massachusetts - Patent: D677,423 - Holding: Plaintiff’s proposed claim construction ADOPTED - Opinion: Plaintiff Maureen Reddy sued...more

IP Newsflash - December 2014: DISTRICT COURT CASES: A Contrary Construction from Reexamination Is No Basis to Reconsider a...

On December 10, 2014, the Southern District of New York denied plaintiff’s motion to reconsider a 2006 claim construction ruling and vacate a related summary judgment order. Plaintiff requested the relief following a contrary...more

Federal Circuit Addresses Plethora of Issues in Affirming $19.5 Million Damage Award

SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion that broached issues of claim construction, non-infringement, willful infringement, invalidity, the legal implications of a...more

Claim Differentiation Fails to Save Patentees from Their Own Words

Cardsoft, LLC v. Verifone, Inc.; World Class Technology Corp. v. Ormco Corp. - In each of two essentially contemporaneous decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee’s contentions...more

Claim terms construed, emphasizing construction is a mixed question of law and fact, and finding a preamble limiting and...

JobDiva, Inc. v. Monster Worldwide, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08229-KBF - On October 3, 2014, Judge Forrest construed terms of four JobDiva patents and one Monster patent. The JobDiva patents are...more

Motion to Reconsider Claim Construction Order on Indefiniteness after Nautilus Denied Where District Court Found Term Definite

Defendant Stealth Cam, LLC ("Stealth Cam") requested that the district court reconsider its Claim Construction Order holding that the term "extending parallel" was not indefinite. The district court first noted that...more

PTAB Does Not Rely on District Court’s Markman Decision in Construing Claim Terms

SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam - Addressing allegations of impropriety of district court judges that purportedly led to a “tainted” claim construction ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and...more

PTAB Follows District Court’s Claim Construction

November 10, 2014 – In construing a term in a claim of an expired patent, the PTAB followed the district court in adopting the petitioner’s proposed construction. ...more

Ornamental Feature of Claim Given No Patentable Weight by PTAB in Obviousness Analysis

Not all claim limitations are treated equally. In Crocs, Inc. v. Polliwalks, Inc., IPR2014-00424, involving US Pat. No. 8,613,148, the Board addressed an argument for patentability based on an ornamental feature found in the...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Weber-Stephen Products LLC v. Sears Holding Corporation

Decision Date: October 20, 2014 - Court: Northern District of Illinois - Patents: D564,834 and D609,045 - Holding: Defendants’ proposed claim construction is REJECTED - Opinion: Plaintiff...more

Inter Partes Review: Validity Before the PTAB [Video]

The PTAB is beginning to develop a reputation as being harsh towards patent owners and the validity of their patents. Why have patent owners struggled so much before the PTAB? Attorneys Seth Northrop and Cyrus Morton discuss...more

PTAB Update -- Is "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" the Appropriate Standard?

One of the more controversial rules concerning PTAB trials promulgated by the USPTO in the wake of the America Invents Act was the adoption of the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") claim construction standard for...more

Dissents and Concurrences Popping up in IPR Proceedings

The PTAB has been remarkably consistent to date in its decisions regarding the variety of issues in inter partes review practice. Issues both simple and complex have typically been resolved by one panel and future panels,...more

Oral Argument In Teva Pharmaceuticals: Supreme Court To Decide Federal Circuit’s Standard Of Review Of District Court Claim...

On October 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (No. 13-854). The issue presented in the case is “Whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its...more

Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Appellate Standard of Review Over Patent Claim Construction

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument October 15, 2014, in Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 13-854. (The transcript and audio recording are available here.) The question before the Court in this case...more

Supreme Court: Should Appeal Give Deference to Lower Courts on Claim Construction?

On October 15, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., case number 13-854. At issue is the level of deference that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

Teva v. Sandoz -- Is Deferential Review a Boon for Patent Trolls?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case to determine whether appellate courts should afford any deference to a trial court's claim construction...more

Board Disagrees with Claim Construction of Prior Proceeding Before the PTO

One of the more disheartening trends to Patent Owners in inter partes review proceedings is the strong willingness of the PTAB to give little or no deference to prior Patent Office proceedings relative to the patent-at-issue....more

170 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 7