Latest Publications

Share:

No Patent-Like Claims Under State Law

Before Chen, Bryson, and Stoll. Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Federal patent laws preempted a state-law conversion claim. Inventorship was properly evaluated using a...more

Jury Instructions Must Describe All Relevant Objective Indicia of Non-obviousness

INLINE PLASTICS CORP V. LACERTA GROUP, LLC - Before Taranto, Chen, and Hughes.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts....more

A Terminal Disclaimer Is Not an Escape Hatch

IN RE CELLECT, LLC - Before Lourie, Dyk, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Obviousness-type double patenting analyses for patents with Patent Term Adjustments are based on the...more

Disclaimers May Not Be Used to Shapeshift Claims

CUPP COMPUTING AS v. TREND MICRO INC. [OPINION] - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stark. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Patent Owners cannot attempt to narrow claims by disclaiming claim scope during an...more

Claim Cancellation Before Assignment Does Not Preclude Assignor Estoppel

Summary: Despite cancelling a claim prior to assignment, assignor estoppel still applied to bar invalidity defenses against a related claim because the assignor warranted the validity of the cancelled claim and the cancelled...more

Effects of Proximity, Plurals, and Passive Voice for Claim Construction

APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY - Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning...more

6 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide