Posts Tagged: CAFC


Co-Inventors Must be Named, Even Those who Contribute to One Aspect of One Claim

On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed whether there was substantial evidence supporting the district court’s finding that Nathan and Matheson should be added as co-inventors. In …

Specification Focus on one Embodiment Cannot Limit the Invention if Specification Contemplates Other Embodiments

While much of the specification focuses on a scheme involving patient-identifying information, the Court held that a specification’s focus cannot be limited on one particular embodiment …

Phillips Claim Construction Standard Applies to Ex Parte Reexam After Patent Expires

The Court held that the Board improperly continued to apply the BRI standard following the expiration. While the examiner properly applied the BRI prior to expiration, the …

The Federal Circuit Will Not Re-Weigh Evidence Considered By The Board in IPR Appeals

The Court noted that all of Warsaw’s arguments related to the Board’s findings of fact, and were therefore reviewed for “substantial evidence.” The Board’s …

Federal Circuit Revisits Scope of Markush Group Claim Elements, Vacates Summary Judgment on Erroneous Construction

However, in spite of the Court’s determination that the Markush group was closed, the Court agreed with Multilayer that the use of the transitional phrase “consisting …

Would Monopoly® be patent ineligible under Alice?

One particularly disconcerting and largely unpredictable aspect of Alice is how it has been used to render games patent ineligible. This type of Alice-creep is particularly disconcerting …
By Gene Quinn
9 months ago 44

Negotiation to Sell Products Outside the US is not an Infringing Offer for Sale

The Federal Circuit again addressed whether Pulse’s domestic sales activities were either a sale or an offer for sale in the U.S. While the patent …

Federal Circuit rules claims defining information-based result are patent ineligible

The CAFC then approvingly noted that the district court invoked "an important common-sense distinction between ends sought and particular means of achieving them, between desired results (functions) …
By John M. Rogitz
10 months ago 21

District Court may consider burden of litigation in deciding whether to stay a patent case

Murata argued that the district court should have relied on the traditional three-factor test, which does not consider the burden of litigation on the court and the …

CAFC: Software means plus function claims Indefinite for failure to disclose algorithm

The Court also affirmed that the this means-plus-function term was indefinite. In the case of computer-implemented functions, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed …

Using a European technical effect approach to software patent-eligibility

Unlike Judge Chen’s breadth-based approach, Judge Hughes appears to adopt the proposal of using the European technical effect ( or “technological arts”) analysis to determine whether a …
By John M. Rogitz
10 months ago 3

Using narrow claim breadth as a sign of software patent-eligibility

In two cases written by Judge Chen (DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com L.P., 2013-1505 (Chen, Wallach, Meyer (dissent) and Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc., v. …
By John M. Rogitz
10 months ago 7

Federal Circuit Vacates District Court’s Determination on Personal Jurisdiction

Polar argued on appeal that the district court erred in finding that Suunto did not have sufficient contacts in Delaware. The Court agreed with Polar. The Court …

Immersion Corp v. HTC Corp: CAFC affirms filing continuation on day parent issues

In large part, the CAFC was concerned with the possible disruption of overturning long-standing PTO practice and the reliance placed on it by practitioners, and this respect …
By John M. Rogitz
10 months ago 0

Biologics Applicant Must Give Post-Approval Notice to Reference Product Sponsor

The Federal Circuit held that there was no statutory language that made section (8)(A) non-mandatory. Further, Amgen v. Sandoz disposed of Apotex’s argument that (8)(A) would …