Posts Tagged: "specification"

Interactive Wearables, the petitioner in yet another patent eligibility case that the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review, filed a reply brief on July 11 distancing its petition from that of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.’s, which was denied certiorari on June 30, 2022. The brief characterizes U.S. patent eligibility doctrine as being “perilously fractured” and narrows its arguments to focus on the third question presented in its petition, since the first two were addressed, and have now been rejected by the Court, in the American Axle case.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday upheld the District of Delaware’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) that Amgen’s patent claims covering its Repatha cholesterol treatment were invalid for lack of enablement. The court found that Amgen’s composition claims were defined by meeting functional limitations, rather than by structure, and that the patent specifications didn’t enable the preparation of the full scope of the claims without undue experimentation. Judge Lourie authored the opinion.  Amgen v. Sanofi (CAFC, Feb. 11, 2020)

On January 5, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejecting the district court’s claim construction and holding that Hong Kong uCloudlink Network (uCloudlink) was entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement (SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink Network). In particular, the CAFC concluded that the district court erred in not requiring the disputed claim to require two or more non-local calls databases and held that SIMO did not identify a triable issue on the question of whether the accused products lack a non-local calls database.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided on October 3 to affirm the ruling by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that the asserted claims of U.S. patent number 7,774,911 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under Section101. Much has been written about the majority and dissenting opinions. Here, we concentrate on what the patent practitioner can do when drafting a patent application in light of the case. Whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the court ruling, and there are interesting comments in the dissent about both claim limitations and legal principles, the lessons from the court ruling are clear.

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) decision finding that Dr. Stephen Quake and Dr. Christina Fan’s (collectively, “Quake”) asserted claims were unpatentable for lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. See Quake v. Lo, Nos. 2018-1779, 2018-1780, 2018-1782, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 20407 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2019) (Before Reyna, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Chen, Circuit Judge). The claims were directed to a method for determining the presence of a chromosomal abnormality, called aneuploidy, in fetuses. Aneuploidy occurs when a fetus is born with either an abnormally high or low number of chromosomes. The claimed detection was accomplished using a method called massively parallel sequencing (MPS). Specifically, the claims recited a “random” MPS method, which amplified and sequenced all DNA in a sample rather than specific, targeted sequences of DNA. Quake, based out of Stanford University, and Dr. Dennis Lo (“Lo”) based out of Chinese University of Hong Kong began developing the claimed methods around the same time and requested interferences with respect to a number of applications to determine who invented the method first.

Global IP Holdings, LLC, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233, achieved a victory with the Federal Circuit vacating a decision of the Board and remanding for the Board to address predictability and criticality of the claim term to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied. Although victorious, Global did not achieve everything it wanted. Global had requested the Federal Circuit to simply overrule the Board. Judge Stoll, however, explained that there was not support in the record sufficient to determine whether the “plastic” claim limitation was critical or important. Therefore, the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and ordered the Board, on remand, to address predictability and criticality of the claim term in question in order to determine whether the written description requirement has been satisfied.

The Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential decision in Indivior Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A., which vacated a preliminary injunction handed out by the District of New Jersey in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case brought by British pharmaceutical firm Indivior. The Federal Circuit panel majority concluded that the district court had abused its discretion in granting the injunction. The majority found that the ‘305 patent’s specification disparaged, and therefore disclaimed, the method of drying the films with the use of conventional methods which only dry the top of the film. Judge Pauline Newman authored a dissenting opinion in which she explained she would have found the district court’s preliminary injunction grant sustained on appeal. According to Judge Newman, the majority’s decision imported the drying limitation from the ‘514 patent claims into the ‘305 patent claims despite the fact that the ‘305 patent was amended specifically to remove this limitation.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, refusing to hear yet another appeal in a case involving a question of patent eligibility… Simply put, the answer to the first question asked by Two-Way Media in its Petition for Certiorari is absolutely not. There never has been a requirement that a patent claim must be — or even should be or can appropriately be — read in isolation. In fact, decisions that purport to ascertain the meaning of claim languagewithout the pomp and circumstance of Markman are openly violating the clear dictates of the Supreme Court. 

Writing a patent application is not as easy as many think. Indeed, the concept of usefully describing the invention, which on its face seems easy enough to understand, is not as straight forward as it might seem, and why you cannot simply file an abbreviate description of an invention and think that suffices to protect anything really. This article looks at the most common parts of a patent application, and provides discussion about what each section needs to include.

The Uniloc patent invalidated by the PTAB in this case is U.S. Patent No. 5490216, titled System for Software Registration and issued in February 1996. It claims a registration system for licensing execution of digital data in a use mode, the system including both local and remote licensee unique ID generating means, and a mode switching means operable on a platform which permits the use of digital data only if the locally-generated licensee unique ID matches the remotely-generated licensee unique ID. The innovation solved issues in prior art systems for software registration for software transferable by physical media which used shell programs or did not utilize information unique to the intended licensee which is distinguishable from the identification of the platform. According to data collected from Lex Machina, Uniloc’s ‘216 patent has been asserted in 65 cases filed in U.S. district court going back to September 2003.

Join Gene Quinn on Thursday, November 9 at 2:00 PM ET for a free webinar conversation on the trends and reality of 112 disclosure requirements. Gene will be joined by Todd Van Thomme, a shareholder with Nyemaster Goode PC, and Cynthia Gilbert, co-founder of Blueshift IP. Van Thomme specializes in mechanical and food science related innovations, while Gilbert specializes in computer implemented inventions. We will, therefore, focus our 112 discussions on these specific areas.

Join Gene Quinn on Thursday, November 9 at 2:00 PM ET for a free webinar conversation on the trends and reality of 112 disclosure requirements. I will be joined by Todd Van Thomme, a shareholder with Nyemaster Goode PC, and Cynthia Gilbert, co-founder of Blueshift IP. Van Thomme specializes in mechanical and food science related innovations, while Gilbert specializes in computer implemented inventions. We will, therefore, focus our 112 discussions on these specific areas.

You absolutely want to file a patent application with a description that is a mile wide — that part is good — but you also need to also drill down far more than one inch deep in order to teach the various nuances of at least the key aspects of the invention. And there are always nuances that can go a mile deep for any and every invention, no matter how simple it may seem to you as the inventor… How do you know how far you need to go? You really should strive to remove doubt and questions from the reader’s mind. While a certain amount of experimentation is allowable, and patents do not need to contain blueprint level detail, ask yourself whether a knowledgeable reader would know from what you’ve written enough to understand your invention without asking additional questions. If answers to additional questions would be necessary to fully comprehend the invention then answer those questions.

Nichia Corporation (“Nichia”) sued Everlight Americas, Inc., Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd. and Zenaro Lighting (collectively, “Everlight”) for infringement of three of Nichia’s patents disclosing packaging designs and methods of manufacturing LED devices. Following a bench trial, the district court found that Everlight infringed all three patents and failed to prove the patents invalid. The district court denied Nichia’s request for a permanent injunction. Nichia appealed the district court’s refusal to enter a permanent injunction, and Everlight cross-appealed the district court’s infringement and validity findings. The Court affirmed on all grounds.