News & Analysis as of

Means-Plus-Function

Holland & Knight LLP

Section 101 Patent Eligibility Roundup: It's Been Too Long

Holland & Knight LLP on

It's been a while since I last posted, and I apologize for that. (If interested, here's an alert about what's kept me away: a CFAA trial we wrapped up in late July.) But I am back, so let's look at the latest on the Section...more

Lathrop GPM

Broad Biotech Patent Claims-the Saga Continues

Lathrop GPM on

There now is increased interest about the written description and enablement requirements for patent applications claiming antibodies. This may stem from the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Amgen v. Sanofi, finding lack...more

WilmerHale

Disclosure of Antibody’s Equivalents Not Necessary to Satisfy Written Description and Indefiniteness Requirements for a...

WilmerHale on

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) Appeals Review Panel (“the Panel”) recently clarified that means-plus-function claims do not require that the specification disclose equivalents. See Ex parte...more

Goodwin

The Appeals Review Panel’s In Re Xencor Decision: The USPTO Provides Its Position on Written Description and Means-Plus-Function...

Goodwin on

On May 17, 2024, an Appeals Review Panel (ARP) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) released its decision in Ex parte Chamberlain (referred to in Federal Circuit proceedings as In re Xencor;...more

MoFo Life Sciences

USPTO Issues Reminder To Examiners On Proper “Means-Plus-Function” Analysis

MoFo Life Sciences on

On March 18, 2024, the USPTO issued a memorandum to its Examiners reminding them of the resources and proper analysis for interpreting limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), which are commonly referred to as...more

McDermott Will & Emery

PTO to Patent Examiners: Make Interpretation of Means-Plus-Function Claims Clear in the Record

McDermott Will & Emery on

On March 18, 2024, the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) issued a memorandum to patent examiners addressing means-plus-function and step-plus-function claim limitations and how to clearly articulate, in the prosecution...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

USPTO Addresses Ambiguities in Means-Plus-Function, Step-Plus-Function Claims

Womble Bond Dickinson on

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) officials recently reiterated to all patent examiners that they must provide clear, consistent analysis regarding means-plus-function and step-plus-function limitations. ...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Recently in the Federal Circuit: More on Indefiniteness in IPRs

Means-plus-function claim elements can be a sticky wicket during an inter partes review, to borrow a phrase from the cricket lovers out there. These are claim elements drafted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or its predecessor...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Decoding Algorithms: Structural Sufficiency for Means-Plus-Function Claim Judged From Skilled Artisan’s Perspective

McDermott Will & Emery on

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that in the context of construing computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, if the specification discloses some arguable algorithm, even if a party...more

Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC

Means Plus Function – Williamson Removed The “Heavy” Presumption But Dyfan And VDPP Pack Some of the Pounds Back On

When a claim term is construed as a means plus function limitation, the recited “means” is limited to only the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing the recited function, and a limited range of...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - March 2022: Federal Circuit Rules on Two Means-Plus-Function/Indefinite Cases

The Federal Circuit issued two cases this week providing more clarity to when a functional claim feature should be considered a de facto means-plus-function claim that requires structural detail to meet the indefiniteness...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

PTAB Strategies and Insights Newsletter - March 2022

The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Not a Bullseye: Defendant Must Rebut Presumption That Claims Lacking “Means” Language Don’t Fall Under § 112 ¶ 6

McDermott Will & Emery on

Reversing a district court finding of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court erred by ignoring unrebutted evidence that the challenged claim...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - March 2022 #4

Hunting Titan, Inc. v. DynaEnergetics Europe GMBH, Appeal Nos. 2020-2163, -2191 (Fed. Cir. March 24, 2022) - In a notable review of the USPTO’s new Precedential Opinions Panel, the Federal Circuit discussed the...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

One Last look at Patent Cases in January

Last week wrapped up a busy January for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments returned to a telephonic format, and arguments next month will be by video (although still audio-only for the public). As the month is now in the...more

Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP

The Continued Impact on Patent Prosecutors and Litigators of the Federal Circuit’s Expanded Treatment of Means Plus Function...

In a new precedential Federal Circuit decision, Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. ITC, that impacts both patent prosecutors and litigators, the court again demonstrated the reach of its recent expansion of language that...more

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP

Indefiniteness Does Not Necessarily End PTAB’s Patentability Inquiry

On December 28, in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) may not decline to consider the patentability of a claim challenged in an inter partes review (IPR)...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Two Weeks in the Federal Circuit (December 27 - January 7)

The Federal Circuit is holding its first argument session of 2022 this week (with a return to telephonic arguments in light of the Omicron variant).  In this post, we take a look back at how the Court closed out 2021 and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Improper Claim Construction Requires Partial Remand of Obviousness Determination

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions in two separate inter partes reviews (IPRs), one involving a patent related to radio frequency communication systems and the other involving a patent related to...more

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC

Latest Federal Court Cases - January 2022

Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1828, -1867 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 28, 2021) - The Federal Circuit issued two precedential decisions this week—both arising from IPRs filed by Intel against patents owned by...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

WilmerHale

CAFC Patent Cases - October 2021

WilmerHale on

Precedential Federal Circuit Opinions KANNUU PTY LTD. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. [OPINION] (2021-1638, 10/7/21) (Newman, Prost, Chen) - Chen, J. Denying motion for preliminary injunction. Patentee sought to compel...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Federal Circuitry

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (July 26-30): Sua sponte claim construction

The Federal Circuit has its August sitting this week—its last before September’s scheduled return to in-person arguments. Before taking the virtual bench for the final time, the Court issued six opinions last week. Below we...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

User Identification Module Held Means-Plus-Function Element, Lacked Structure/Algorithm and Invalid

In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the claimed language “user identification module” was a means-plus-function element with no corresponding structure disclosed in the...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Failing to Adequately Support a Means-Plus-Function Claim Term Renders a Claim Invalid

Claim language is important. Particularly when dealing with software systems, claims may be held invalid as being indefinite when the claim language is characterized as “means-plus-function” under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §112 ¶ 6...more

109 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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide