News & Analysis as of

Impact of Nautilus on Biotech and Pharmaceutical Patents

In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014), the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard for determining whether a patent claim meets the definiteness requirement...more

“Mechanism” Claim Term Found to Be an Indefinite Means-Plus-Function Element - Media Rights Techs. v. Capital One Financial Corp.

Addressing whether a claim term was a means-plus-function term under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit construed the disputed term as a...more

Enablement: Multiple Measurement Methods Can Lead to the Same Result - Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc.

Addressing the issues of indefiniteness and non-infringement for both utility and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated in part the district court’s grant of summary judgment...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2015

Federal Circuit Remands Record Damages Award For New Trial On Extraterritorial Sales - In Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd., Appeal No. 2014-1492, the Federal Circuit reversed a damages award...more

Clarifying the Post-Nautilus Indefiniteness Standard - The Dow Chemical Co. v. NOVA Chemicals Corp. et al.

Addressing the post-Nautilus indefiniteness standard, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding that the claims-at-issue are not indefinite and similarly reversed an associated order granting...more

Court Invalidates Patent Claims After Refusing to Correct Alleged "Typos"

On September 10, 2015, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas invalidated as indefinite two patent claims for a remote tracking system, refusing to accept plaintiff's argument that any indefiniteness was the...more

Inconsistent Positions: Never as Good in Practice as in Theory

In Smith v.Orbcomm. Inc. [2:14-CV-666 (E.D. Tex. 2015), Judge Gilstrap invalidated as indefinite two claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,611,686 on a system of remotely tracking vehicles and cargo, rejecting the patent owner’s...more

Functional Language Made Claims Indefinite

In Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, [2014-1218] (September 4, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings that all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,316,033 were invalid...more

Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015) - Broad Claim Terms and Inadequate Support in...

In Media Rights Technologies, Inc. v. Capital One Financial Corp. (September 4, 2015), the Federal Circuit first transformed a broadly described element in a claim into a means-plus-function claim term, and then found the...more

Rule 54(b) Final Judgment Entered On Indefinite Patents

The Court found patents indefinite through partial summary judgment motion practice. Patent owner requested entry of judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in writing and orally. Accused infringer objected, contending that...more

Court Finds Dow Claims Clearly Indefinite

In Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corp., the Federal Circuit held claims reciting a limitation that could be calculated in several ways indefinite where the patent claims, specification, and prosecution history failed to...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2015

The Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (No. 2014-1431, -1462, 8/28/15) (Prost, Dyk, Wallach). Dyk, J. Reversing award of supplemental damages. "We hold that the intervening change in the law of...more

A Defined Numerical Parameter Can Still Be Indefinite, If It’s Not Clear How to Measure It

In The Dow Chemical Co. v. Nova Chemicals Corporation (Canada), [2014-1431, 2014-1462] (August 28, 2015) the Federal Circuit applied the change of law exception to reject Dow’s bid for supplemental damages for infringements...more

Nautilus Standard Sinks Dow Patents

Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) lost a ruling that competitor NOVA Chemical Corporation and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (collectively “NOVA”) infringed claims of two Dow patents when the Federal Circuit applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s...more

Delaware Judges Are Finding Patent Claims Indefinite Post-Nautilus

It has been a little more than a year since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Nautilus, lowering the standard for finding patent claim terms indefinite. Many commentators at that time predicted the decision would...more

PTAB Addresses Antecedent Basis Issues in IPR

Claims that have terms lacking antecedent basis can present an opportunity for defendants in litigation, including creating a potential invalidity defense under 35 USC §112. It is interesting, therefore, to review the Board’s...more

Summary Judgment Decision Eliminates Indefinite Claims And Willfulness; Remaining Infringement Claims Are Left For The Jury

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity is granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of infringement is denied. Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of claim 3...more

District Court Finds Enhanced Patent Indefiniteness

I don’t usually write about district court decisions, but the patent indefiniteness ruling in Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp. (D. Del., July 26, 2015), caught my attention. The court held the asserted claim...more

Federal Circuit Review | July 2015

Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments Insufficient To Confer Retroactive Standing - In ALPS SOUTH, LLC v. OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO., Appeal Nos. 2013-1452, 2013-1488, 2014-1147, and 2014-1426, the Federal Circuit reversed the denial of a...more

Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

On September 23, 2010, Eon filed suit against seventeen defendants in the District Court of the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757. During the case, the '757 patent went through two...more

Only Basic Functions of a Processor Avoid Need for Disclosed Algorithm - EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Addressing the question of what corresponding structure must be disclosed to support a means-plus-function claim element, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court finding that eight...more

The Federal Circuit Alters the Means-Plus-Function Analysis

The Federal Circuit’s recent en banc opinion in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10082, *2 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2015) (Williamson II) may result in courts finding that more claims include...more

Federal Circuit En Banc Decision in Williamson v. Citrix Overrules Long Line of Precedent Regarding Functional Claiming and § 112,...

On June 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, overruling en banc a long line of precedent regarding functional claiming and affirming a District Court decision finding asserted...more

Partial Summary Judgment Of Invalidity Due To Indefiniteness Is Granted

The parties dispute whether the limitation "processing system" is indefinite. Defendant argues that the limitation is indefinite, because the structural limitation, "processing system," is only described functionally. The...more

No Substantial Change in Standard for Indefiniteness Under “Reasonable Certainty” Test - Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus,...

In an opinion addressing the standard for indefiniteness in view of the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2014 “reasonable certainty” test, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit maintained its reversal of the...more

102 Results
View per page
Page: of 5

"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 to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*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.