News & Analysis as of

Means-Plus-Function Indefiniteness Patent Infringement

McDermott Will & Emery

“Payment Handler”: A Nonce Term Without Instructions

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a software term was a “nonce” term that invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (i.e., a means-plus-function claim element). The Court...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Means-Plus-Function Claims: Don’t Forget the “Way”

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s findings of noninfringement, in part because the plaintiff had failed to prove the “way” element of the function-way-result test for a first...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - March 2021

Knobbe Martens on

Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite - In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Appeal No. 20-1646, the Federal Circuit held that the structure for performing a...more

Knobbe Martens

Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite

Knobbe Martens on

RAIN COMPUTING, INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. Before Lourie, Dyk, and Moore. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Summary:  The structure for performing a function of...more

Jones Day

CAFC Holds PTAB May Not Cancel Claims For Indefiniteness In An IPR

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., — F.3d —, 2020 WL 543427, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4. 2020), could not be more clear: “[W]e hold that the Board may not...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

PTAB Cannot Invalidate Challenged Claims for Indefiniteness in an IPR

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The Federal Circuit definitively rejected arguments to cancel challenged claims for reasons other than anticipation or obviousness in an inter partes review proceeding. In Samsung Electronics America, Inc., v. Prisua...more

WilmerHale

Federal Circuit Patent Updates - August 2018

WilmerHale on

Ericsson Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC (No. 2017-1521, 8/27/18) (Reyna, Taranto, Chen) Reyna, J. - Vacating and remanding the PTAB’s IPR decision because the PTAB erred in not considering portions of the petitioner’s...more

Knobbe Martens

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. v. ITC

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Bryson, and O’Malley. Appeal from the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”). Summary: Evidence intrinsic to a patent may be sufficient to overcome the presumption...more

Knobbe Martens

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Reyna, Taranto, and Hughes. Appeal from the Northern District of California. Summary: Failure to use the word “means” creates a rebuttable presumption that the term is not a...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - July 2017

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

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

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. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Indefiniteness of Means-Plus-Function Claims

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

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Means-Plus-Function Claim Interpretation in Patent Claims – Remember the Alamo!

The Battle of the Alamo occurred between February 23 and March 6, 1836. Here, 180 years later, during the anniversary of the Alamo, I found myself in the Eastern District of Texas at a Markman hearing – and it reminded me of...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - January 2016

Highlights of 2015 and What to Watch in 2016 in The United States - Commil USA, llC v. CiSCo SyStemS, inC. (Supreme Court, may 26, 2015). In May, the Supreme Court held that a good faith belief that an asserted patent...more

McDermott Will & Emery

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

McDermott Will & Emery on

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

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

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

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

19 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