News & Analysis as of

Indefiniteness

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

CAFC Says Functional Claim Language Does Not Create Divided Infringement

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

In LifeNet Health v. LifeCell Corporation, one of the many issues the Federal Circuit decided was that functional claim language did not create a divided infringement situation, even though an independent actor could impact...more

Federal Circuit Review | August 2016

Federal Circuit Holds That Using A Contract Manufacturer Does Not Trigger An On-Sale Bar - In The Medicines Co. v. Hospira, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2014-1469, -1504, the Federal Circuit, en banc, held that the patentee’s deal...more

Claim Narrowed by Specification is Saved from Indefiniteness but too Narrow to be Infringed

In Liberty Ammunition, Inc., v. U.S., [2015-5057, 2015-5061] (August 30, 2016), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Claims decision that that ammunition rounds used by the United States Army embody the claims of Liberty...more

Indefiniteness of Means-Plus-Function Claims

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing both the circumstances that lead to a claim limitation invoking a means-plus-function construction and indefiniteness issues for means-plus-function claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed...more

Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy (Fed. Cir. 2016); Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Garmin Int'l., Inc. (Fed. Cir....

In parallel decisions regarding litigation over the same patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court decision that the claims were invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This decision, expressly...more

And in the Alternative . . .

The older among us have “unlearned” the prohibition of the word “or” in patent claims, and have reasoned that if “or” is acceptable, its cousin “and/or” is acceptable in patent claims as well. A few years ago, the USPTO...more

Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be “Non-Abstract”

by Fish & Richardson on

Federal Circuit reverses determination of subject-matter ineligibility as to patent claims directed to software, vacates summary judgment of anticipation for four claims based on patentee’s purposeful use of a singular...more

Invalidity And Non-Infringement Motions Are Denied

by Morris James LLP on

The disputed technology relates to a programmable communicator device capable of receiving and authenticating transmissions and storing them and further contemplates a remotely programmable device that allows for remote data...more

Inconsistent and Confusing Specification Language Does Not Support Broad Claim Construction - Trustees of Columbia Univ. v....

by McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing various claim constructions that led to a stipulated judgment of non-infringement and partial invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed two claim constructions and a related...more

Functional Claim Language Does Not Render Apparatus Claim Indefinite For Including Both Method And Apparatus

Patent applications involving electrical and/or computer related inventions often involve functional claim language. For example, software may be claimed in terms of its function. One or more components of an electrical...more

136 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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!