News & Analysis as of

Indefiniteness

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

by Knobbe Martens on

District Court Abused Discretion in Not Finding Case Exceptional - In Rothschild Connected Devices v. Guardian Protection Services, Appeal No. 2016-2521, the Federal Circuit held that a district court abused its discretion...more

Indefiniteness Dooms Patent Claims on Summary Determination

by Jones Day on

Dispositive summary judgment in district court patent cases is somewhat common, but similar early dispositions of Section 337 investigations in the ITC are rare in comparison. One such outcome happened recently in Certain UV...more

Standard for Claim Indefiniteness Virtually Relaxes

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing claim indefiniteness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim term “virtually free from interference” was sufficiently definite to pass § 112 muster. One-E-Way, Inc. v. Sony Corp.,...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

One-E-Way, Inc. v. ITC, Fed. Cir. Case 2016-2105 (June 12, 2017) - A divided panel reverses a determination of indefiniteness by the ITC, ruling that under Nautilus, the claim language, in combination with the...more

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - June 2017

by WilmerHale on

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. (No. 2016-2107, -2221, 6/19/17) (Moore, Schall, Hughes) Moore, J. Affirming dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction....more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. Please see full publication below for more information....more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

Federal Circuit’s Primer on Equivalence Infringement of Chemical Process Patents

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In an appeal characterized as “unusual,” the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction, holding it likely that plaintiff patent holder would succeed on the merits its claim of infringement of a patent...more

In Determining Whether a Case “Stands Out,” It was Not Improper to Consider Patent Cases Generally

In Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Co., [2016-1576] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional” under 35 USC 285, and the award of $2.5 million...more

Willfulness Can Be Predicated on Brief Between Declaratory Judgment Filing and Counterclaim

by McDermott Will & Emery on

In a complex 42-page decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed issues of assignor estoppel, claim indefiniteness, subject matter eligibility, claim preclusion, willfulness and lost profits damages...more

Little Words That Can Make a Big Difference: i.e. Versus e.g.

The difference between “i.e.” (id est, “that is”) and “e.g.” (exempli gratia, “for example”) comes up in patent cases from time to time. While the difference is not always clear to some practitioners, it is clear to the...more

Fed Circ Affirms Conflicting Invalidity Determinations from District Court and PTAB

by Jones Day on

As we have previously discussed on this blog, when considering an issue of patentability such as definiteness under section 112, the PTAB and a district court may properly reach opposite conclusions. In Tinnus Enterprises LLC...more

“Visually Negligible” Is Not Indefinite

by McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision that the claim term “visually negligible” was indefinite because the specification provided examples of visually negligible indicators,...more

Can You Be Reasonably Certain a Water Balloon Is Substantially Filled? Indefiniteness in Tinnus v. Telebrands

In Tinnus Enterprises, LLV v. Telebrands Enterprises (Fed. Cir. 2016-1410), the CAFC considered whether a claim requiring that a container (think water balloon) be “substantially filled” was indefinite under 35 USC §112....more

CAFC Upholds Preliminary Injunction Despite Unpatentability Ruling of PTAB

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

This week in Tinnus Enterprises LLC v. Telebrands Corp. (Moore, Wallach and Stoll), the Federal Circuit upheld the grant of a preliminary injunction by the Eastern District of Texas, despite a PTAB Final Written Decision...more

Eli Lilly v. Teva – Expert Testimony and the Indefiniteness Inquiry

In the patent world, claim scope depends on the meaning given to the individual words in the claim. If the meaning of a word in the claim is not clear, the claim may be attacked as invalid under the indefiniteness standard....more

2017 Intellectual Property Law Year In Review

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Though politics ruled the headlines in 2016, the year still brought big changes in intellectual property law and its application, most notably in patent subject matter eligibility, inter partes review institution and appeal...more

Instructions Induced Prescribing Physicians to Infringe

In Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., [2015-2067] (January 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of inducement of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209, and that the the asserted claims...more

Issue One: Keeping Tabs on the PTAB

by Goodwin on

The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This monthly digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more

Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Divided Infringement, Inducement of Infringement, and Indefiniteness

by BakerHostetler on

Patent owners will applaud the Federal Circuit’s latest pronouncement on divided infringement, inducement of infringement, and claim definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc.,...more

You’ll Have To Be More Specific When Crafting That Generic Claim

Recent § 101 jurisprudence regarding tech inventions can be distilled down to two words: be specific. That’s a problem for patents in the tech space, because they are not specific at all, claiming inventions using broad...more

Point of Novelty Enters Indefiniteness Analysis

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communication Co., Case No. 16-1013 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 23, 2016) (Prost, CJ) (Newman, J, dissenting). Sprint sued Cox for patent infringement, asserting several patents directed to...more

A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Debates the Standards for Definiteness

by BakerHostetler on

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman and Bryson, unanimously...more

“Processing System” Does Not Render Claims Indefinite

The Federal Circuit relied on Nautilus to preserve functional language of a method claim in a decision published last Friday. In Cox Comm, Inc. v. Sprint, No. 2016-1013, the Federal Circuit held that the term “processing...more

Structural Element Does Not Make Method Claims Indefinite

In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communication Company LP, [2016-1013] (September 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s determination that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,452,932;...more

140 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
Cybersecurity

"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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.