A US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) appeals review panel decided that a means-plus-function (M+F) claim element supported by the disclosure of only a single species is not invalid for indefiniteness or lack of written...more
It’s No Secret That a Related Company’s Physical Presence in a Jurisdiction May Not Be Enough For Proper Venue - In Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, Appeal No. 20-2009, The Federal Circuit held that an...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition for inter partes review (IPR), in part because an allegedly anticipatory prior art patent lacked an element of what the board determined was a limiting...more
In Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Group, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that the same preamble limits the scope of the claims in one patent, but does not limit the scope of the claims in another patent. ...more
Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”), which disallows the deduction by any publicly held corporation with respect to certain compensation paid to a covered employee over $1,000,000, was amended by the 2017 Tax...more
In its latest effort to provide direction and clarity to regulated industry and stakeholders, on September 23, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a proposed rule and preamble amending its medical product...more
Claims Covering Human Engineering That Exploit a Naturally-Occurring Phenomenon Are Patent Eligible - In Illumina, Inc. V. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., Appeal No. 19-1419, the Federal Circuit modified its earlier decision...more
BIO-RAD LABORATORIES, INC. v. 10X GENOMICS INC. Before Newman, O’Malley, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Where elements of preamble are limiting,...more
On August 3, 2020, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified its decision in TomTom v. Adolph regarding limiting claim preambles, holding that the preamble of the claim at issue could not be...more
Non-Infringement Need Not Be “Actually Litigated” To Shield Accused Products From Infringement Liability In Subsequent Actions - In In Re Personal Web Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 19-1918, the Federal Circuit ruled that the...more
Finding that a patent’s preamble was not limiting and the patent owner’s secondary considerations of non-obviousness were weak, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a finding of obviousness by the Patent...more
SHOES BY FIREBUG LLC v. STRIDE RITE CHILDREN'S GROUP - Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: In similar claims of two related patents, one preamble was limiting...more
If Sustained, Court Decision Will Require Disclosure of Results for a Decade of Certain Clinical Trials - Section 801 of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (“Section 801”), which is codified at 42...more
The Appointments Clause: Ensuring That PTAB Decisions Are Subject to Constitutional Checks and Balances In Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 18-2251, the Federal Circuit ruled that, under the then-existing...more
In an appeal stemming from the denial of a patent application under § 102(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by holding that the claims’ preambles were claim...more
IN RE: DAVID FOUGHT, MARTIN CLANTON - Before Newman, Moore, and Chen. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: A preamble description of the invention as a “travel trailer” was a structural limitation....more
Related Party Debt Documentation Rules Are Removed and Future Changes to Limit Recharacterization Rules Are Expected - On October 31, 2019, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made two significant...more
On May 8, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of inter partes review in William Wesley Carnes, Sr., Inc. v. Seaboard Int’l Inc., No. IPR2019-00133, holding that the mere fact that prior art references...more
Just Because Something May Result From a Prior Art Teaching Does Not Make it Inherent in that Teaching - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1599, the Federal Circuit clarified that the mere...more
Introduction - On April 17, 2019, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the U.S. Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) issued a second set of proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) under section...more
In an opinion addressing claim construction and priority dates, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that preamble language is not limiting when it merely recites an intended use, and that diligence need...more
The general rule is that a patent claim’s preamble does not limit the claim unless the preamble gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claim. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products,...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Reyna, Taranto. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Where the preamble of a claim merely identifies an intended use and does not impose a structural...more
On December 13, 2018, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) and the Department of the Treasury (the “Treasury”) released proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) with respect to the “base erosion and anti-abuse...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Omitting a transition phrase between the preamble and the body of a claim does not cause terms in the...more