Partnering in Patents. Functional Claim Language, USPTO Training & Williamson: A Mechanical Perspective
|
|
- Mabel McKinney
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Partnering in Patents Functional Claim Language, USPTO Training & Williamson: A Mechanical Perspective October 21, 2015 Jack B. Hicks Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 300 North Greene Street, Suite 1900 Greensboro, NC (336) jhicks@wcsr.com Adjunct Professor, Elon University School of Law David R. Crowe Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 300 North Greene Street, Suite 1900 Greensboro, NC (336) dcrowe@wcsr.com
2 35 USC 112(f) An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 2
3 Three-Prong Analysis for Invoking 112(f) (A) IF the claim limitation uses the term means or step or a term used as a substitute for means that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; AND (B) The term means or step or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word for (e.g., means for ) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; THEN 112(f) Presumed Invoked; BUT (C) IF the term means or step or the generic placeholder is modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; THEN 112(f) NOT Invoked 3
4 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Claim: a distributed learning control module for receiving communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems and for relaying the communications to an intended receiving computer system and for coordinating the operation of the streaming data module. Held: 112(6) Invoked Module is a well-known nonce word that can operate as a substitute for "means" in the context of 112, para (6) applies. (Id. at 1350) Because the '840 patent fails to disclose any structure corresponding to the "coordinating" function of the "distributed learning control module," we affirm the judgment that claims 8-16 are invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, para. 2. (Id. at 1354) 4
5 Mechanism Compare: Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (112(6) Invoked) Claim: colorant selection mechanism for receiving said modified appearance signals and for selecting corresponding reproduction signals representing values of said reproducing colorants to produce in said medium a colorimetrically-matched reproduction. Held: 112(6) Invoked The presumption here (to avoid 112(6)) is overcome and that the phrase "colorant selection mechanism" should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. The generic terms "mechanism," "means," "element," and "device," typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure. Here the patentee used "mechanism" and "means" as synonyms. (Id. at 1354) 5
6 Mechanism Compare: Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (112(6) NOT Invoked) Claim: a radially enlarged wheel on said sleeve and said wheel and said one handle having a cooperating detent mechanism defining the conjoint rotation of said shafts in predetermined intervals. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked: The fact that a particular mechanism -- here "detent mechanism" -- is defined in functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term into a "means for performing a specified function" within the meaning of section 112(6). Many devices take their names from the functions they perform. The examples are innumerable, such as "filter," "brake," "clamp," "screwdriver," or "lock." Indeed, several of the devices at issue in this case have names that describe their functions, such as "graspers," "cutters," and "suture applicators. (Id. at 1583) Detent mechanism does not invoke 112(6) even though specification used detent means instead in most instances. (Id.) 6
7 Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Claim: a connector assembly for connecting each pair of adjacent support members, said connector assembly being pivotally connected to said pair of adjacent support members. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked In considering whether a claim term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of section 112 P 6, we have not required the claim term to denote a specific structure. Instead, we have held that it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies the structures by their function. (Id. at 1359) 7
8 Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int l Inc., 174 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 1999) Claim: An eyeglass hanger member for mounting a pair of eyeglasses. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked The rest of the claim had sufficient structure to support the claimed function, for example, the member was "made from flat sheet material" with an "opening means formed... below [its] upper edge." (Id. at 1318) 8
9 CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002) Claim: First and second reciprocating members, each reciprocating member having a first and a second end, a portion of said first and second reciprocating members being adapted for substantially linear motion. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked the dictionary definitions of "member" show that an artisan of ordinary skill would understand this term to have an ordinary meaning and to connote beam-like structures. (Id. at 1369) 9
10 Personalized Media Communs., LLC v. ITC, (161 F.3d 696) (Fed. Cir. 1998) Claim: a digital detector for receiving said transmission and detecting said predetermined signal in said transmission based on either a specific location or a specific time. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked The "digital detector" limitation does not use the word "means," and therefore this limitation is presumed not to invoke 112, P 6. Neither intrinsic nor extrinsic evidence rebuts this presumption because the term "detector" is a sufficient recitation of structure. "Detector" is not a generic structural term such as "means," "element," or "device"; nor is it a coined term lacking a clear meaning, such as "widget" or "ram-afram. Instead, as noted by the ALJ by reference to dictionary definitions, "detector" had a well-known meaning to those of skill in the electrical arts connotative of structure, including a rectifier or demodulator. (Id. at 704) 10
11 Watts v. XL Sys., 232 F.3d 877 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Claim: The joints each having a second end formed with tapered external threads dimensioned such that one such joint may be sealingly connected directly with another such joint; the threads being of sufficient length and taper such that the pipe wall strength of the first end in the area of the smallest diameter of thread engagement is at least three-fourths of the average pipe wall strength of the joints of pipe. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked, sufficient structure provided: The claim limitation recites "a second end formed with tapered external threads" and refers to "a first end" with "tapered internal threads." These terms clearly have reasonably well understood meanings in the art as names for structure. (Id. at 881) 11
12 Using Means May NOT Invoke 112(6): Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Claim: Perforation means extending from the leg band means to the waist band means through the outer impermeable layer means for tearing the outer impermeable layer means for removing the training brief in case of an accident by the user. Held: 112(6) NOT Invoked The drafter of claim 1 in the '239 patent was clearly enamored of the word "means": six of seven elements in that claim include the word "means," which occurs in the claim fourteen times. We find, however, no reason to construe any of the claim language in claim 1 as reciting means-plusfunction elements within the meaning of 112, P 6. For example, the "perforation means... for tearing" element of Cole's claim fails to satisfy the statute because it describes the structure supporting the tearing function (i.e., perforations). (Id. at 531) 12
13 Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction of fire, sound and impact resistant security barriers and rooms for use in securing records and persons, comprising in combination, an outer shell of substantially parallelepiped shaped with two outer steel plate panel sections of greater surface area serving as inner and outer walls for a structure when a plurality of the modules are fitted together, sealant means spacing the two panel sections from steel to steel contact with each other by a thermal-acoustical barrier material, and further means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load bearing capacity comprising internal steel baffles extending inwardly from the steel shell walls. 13
14 Phillips Cont. Claim: means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load bearing capacity comprising internal steel baffles extending inwardly from the steel shell walls. Court Held 112(6) NOT Invoked We agree with the panel that the term "baffles" is not means-plus-function language that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6. To be sure, the claim refers to "means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load bearing capacity," a formulation that would ordinarily be regarded as invoking the means-plus-function claim format. However, the claim specifically identifies "internal steel baffles" as structure that performs the recited function of increasing the shell's load-bearing capacity. (Id. at 1311, emphasis added) 14
15 There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper MPEP (g) 15
16 More on Phillips The critical language of claim 1 of the '798 patent further means disposed inside the shell for increasing its load bearing capacity comprising internal steel baffles extending inwardly from the steel shell walls -- imposes three clear requirements with respect to the baffles. they must be part of the load-bearing means for the wall section. (Id. at 1324) Thus the function of the baffles was a requirement of structure for purposes of infringement. The Court was completely silent on any 112 concerns over either functional claim phrase: Building modules adapted to fit together for construction of fire, sound and impact resistant security barriers and rooms (Building modules) for use in securing records and persons. 16
17 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) Claim: (The) driven member includes a cylindrical sleeve made of a magnetizable material. The material is claimed by its characteristic and not on the particular composition of the material. The Court was silent regarding any concern over 112 issues from this language. 17
18 Ex Parte Miyazaki (BPAI: November 19, 2008) Claim: 26. A large printer comprising: a sheet feeding area operable to feed a plurality of paper rolls ranging in width from 210 mm to 1120 mm, a substantially flat sheet of paper ranging in length from 420 mm to 1580 mm and at least one stiff carton ranging in length from 420 mm to 730 mm. (Claim in its entirety.) Held: Rejected under 112(1) Enablement A claim lacks enablement when a feature is a purely functional recitation with no limitation of structure while simultaneously failing to invoke the benefits of 112(6). 18
19 Definiteness 35 U.S.C. 112(b) To determine whether a claim limitation expressed in functional language is definite with clear scope/meaning, consider: Is there a clear indication of the scope of subject matter covered by the language, e.g., a specification definition or known meaning in the art? Does the limitation have well defined boundaries or does it only express a problem solved or intended result? Would one of ordinary skill in the relevant art know what structures/steps are covered by the limitation? 19
20 Conclusions for Mechanical Cases: To avoid the unintentional application of 112(f) Avoid the term means. Name devices with nouns that describe their functions "filter," "brake," "clamp," "screwdriver," "lock," "graspers," "cutters," and "suture applicators. Limit the combination of these functional nouns with nonce words E.g. connector versus connector assembly E.g. detent versus detent assembly E.g. hanger versus hanger assembly There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. 20
21 QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, COMMENTS? 21
22 Attorney Bio Information Jack Hicks is a licensed patent attorney with more than 25 years of experience. He counsels clients to determine the type and scope of intellectual property protection that meets their business goals. A substantial portion of his practice includes the preparation and prosecution of U.S. and foreign patent and trademark applications and his practice focuses upon counseling clients in national and international intellectual property evaluation, protection and enforcement. In addition to his work with Womble Carlyle, Jack serves as an adjunct professor at Elon University School of Law where he teaches intellectual property law and leads student groups for course study in destinations including China, Vietnam and Singapore. David Crowe is a registered patent attorney and an associate in Womble Carlyle s Intellectual Property practice group. David s practice focuses on all aspects related to the acquisition of patent rights, including patentability studies, as well as application preparation and prosecution for both utility and design applications in the U.S. and abroad. David s practice covers mechanical, electromechanical, optical and materials based technologies. He is also a former primary patent examiner having worked in the illumination art unit at the USPTO. 22
Williamson v. Citrix Online: A Fundamental Shift and Return to Form in Means-Plus-Function Interpretation
Berkeley Technology Law Journal Volume 31 Issue 2 Annual Review 2016 Article 14 9-25-2016 Williamson v. Citrix Online: A Fundamental Shift and Return to Form in Means-Plus-Function Interpretation Shong
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ENOCEAN GMBH, Appellant, v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Appellee. 2012-1645 Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of
More informationCase 7:09-cv O Document 67 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION
Case 7:09-cv-00018-O Document 67 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION ALTO-SHAAM, INC., Plaintiff VS. THE MANITOWOC COMPANY,
More informationDoes Your Claim Conform to Means-Plus- Function Format under Section 112, Paragraph Six?: 0.1 Corp. v. Tekmar Co.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law Volume 6 Issue 2 Article 2 March 1999 Does Your Claim Conform to Means-Plus- Function Format under Section 112, Paragraph Six?: 0.1 Corp. v. Tekmar Co. Fidel D. Nwamu
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW REDUCING THE NEED FOR MARKMAN DETERMINATIONS ROBERT H. RESIS, ESQ. ABSTRACT The uncertainty as to whether claim interpretation decisions will survive
More informationExamining Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations for Compliance with. AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/07/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-28283, and on govinfo.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
More informationPatent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August Patent in Suit
Patent Claim Construction: Phillips v. AWH (Fed. Cir., July 12, 2005) (en banc) Edward D. Manzo August 2005 Patent in Suit 1 Patent in Suit Claim 1 1. Building modules adapted to fit together for construction
More informationAre all pending claims now indefinite? Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D.
Are all pending claims now indefinite? Robert A. Schwartzman, Ph.D. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has recently instituted a major shift in United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
More informationINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY In Phillips v. AWH, the En Banc Federal Circuit Refocuses Claim Construction on a Patent s Intrinsic Evidence July 29, 2005 In perhaps its most anticipated decision since Markman
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ADVANCED GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. LIFE360, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1732 Appeal from the United States District
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationFunctional Claiming: Guidance from the Courts [Software and Electrical Arts Perspective] By Nicholas Camillo 1 and Sarah Knight 2
Functional Claiming: Guidance from the Courts [Software and Electrical Arts Perspective] I. Introduction By Nicholas Camillo 1 and Sarah Knight 2 Patent claims are integral in defining the scope of protection
More informationAIR TURBINE TECHNOLOGY, INC,
United States District Court, S.D. Florida. AIR TURBINE TECHNOLOGY, INC, Plaintiff. v. ATLAS COPCO AB, Atlas Copco Tools AB, Atlas Copco North America, Inc. and Atlas Copco Tools, Inc, Defendants. No.
More informationPlausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1. As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009
Plausible Indefiniteness: High Time for More Definite Patent Claims? By S. Stuart Lee and Ayan M. Afridi 1 As published in IPLaw 360 April 16, 2009 Recently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board
More informationBackground: Owner of patent for pneumatic pressure braking mechanism for rotary apparatus sued competitor for infringement.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida. AIR TURBINE TECHNOLOGY, INC, Plaintiff. v. ATLAS COPCO AB, Atlas Copco Tools AB, Atlas Copco North America, Inc. and Atlas Copco Tools, Inc, Defendants. No.
More informationUnited States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division.
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. Kermit AGUAYO and Khanh N. Tran, Plaintiffs. v. UNIVERSAL INSTRUMENTS CORPORATION, Defendant. June 9, 2003. Claudia Wilson Frost, Mayer Brown
More informationThe Scope of Patents. Claim Construction & Patent Infringement. Introduction to Intellectual Property Law & Policy Professor Wagner
The Scope of Patents Claim Construction & Patent Infringement Introduction to Intellectual Property Law & Policy Professor Wagner Lecture Agenda Claim Construction (Literal) Patent Infringement The Doctrine
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1142, -1161, -1162, -1163 THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY and ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC., v. ABACUS SOFTWARE, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationDeputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE MEMORANDUM Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov Date: September 2, 2008 To:
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ASPEX EYEWEAR, INC., and CONTOUR OPTIK, INC., v. ALTAIR EYEWEAR, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendant-Cross
More informationUnited States District Court
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALACRITECH, INC., Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Defendant. / ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
More informationORDER FOLLOWING MARKMAN HEARING I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND
United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division. LEGATO SYSTEMS, INC., (Now EMC Corp.), Plaintiff(s). v. NETWORK SPECIALISTS, INC, Defendant(s). No. C 03-02286 JW Nov. 18, 2004. Behrooz
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1139 CCS FITNESS, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, BRUNSWICK CORPORATION and its Division LIFE FITNESS, Defendant-Appellee. Paul T. Meiklejohn, Dorsey
More informationCrafting & Drafting Winning Patents. Course Syllabus
I. OVERVIEW CHAPTER A. Crafting and Drafting a Winning Patent Is Shockingly More Difficult to Achieve Than Ever Before B. The Major Source of the Aggravated Difficulty de novo Review of Claim Construction
More informationThe court upheld a jury verdict for the farmers, ruling that the farmers were indeed
WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC Cite as 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) 1339 The court upheld a jury verdict for the farmers, ruling that the farmers were indeed third-party beneficiaries. Our case is
More informationKeith A. Rabenberg, Richard L. Brophy, Senniger Powers, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division. WORLD WIDE STATIONERY MANUFACTURING CO., LTD, Plaintiff. v. U.S. RING BINDER, L.P, Defendant. No. 4:07-CV-1947 (CEJ) March 31, 2009. Keith
More informationUnited States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. LG ELECTRONICS, INC, Plaintiff. v. QUANTA COMPUTER INC., and Quanta Computer USA, Inc, Defendants.
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin. LG ELECTRONICS, INC, Plaintiff. v. QUANTA COMPUTER INC., and Quanta Computer USA, Inc, Defendants. No. 07-cv-361-bbc March 4, 2008. Eric Richard Hubbard, Gene
More informationDEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 16th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION October 27-28, 2011 Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle
More informationPlaintiff, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------- LUMOS TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD., -v- JEDMED INSTRUMENT COMPANY, Plaintiff, Defendant. --------------------------------------
More informationMeans-Plus-Function Patent Claims After Williamson: Navigating the New Standard
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Means-Plus-Function Patent Claims After Williamson: Navigating the New Standard Assessing Impact on Prosecution, Litigation and IPRs THURSDAY, DECEMBER
More informationDrafting Patent Claims
Drafting Patent Claims David Grossman, Esq. PatentServices.com 1 2015 All Rights Reserved The Purpose of Claims To Obtain Commercially Valuable Protection of Patentable Ideas Patent claims are the part
More informationEx parte Miyazaki: Definite Difficulty With BPAI s New Standard for Indefiniteness. By Nicholas Plionis. Introduction
Ex parte Miyazaki: Definite Difficulty With BPAI s New Standard for Indefiniteness By Nicholas Plionis Introduction The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated,
More informationDRAFTING A COMMON SPECIFICATION
DRAFTING A COMMON SPECIFICATION FOR USPTO AND EPO PRACTICE Christopher Francis, Bejin Bieneman PLC Sullivan Fountain, Keltie LLP January 18, 2018 CLE CREDITS After the webinar concludes, a follow-up e-mail
More informationClaim Construction. Larami Super Soaker
Claim Construction Validity Claim Construction Comparison of: claimed invention and accused device Claim Construction Tank thereon TTMP Gun Larami Super Soaker A toy comprising an elongated housing [case]
More informationPaper 7 Tel: Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 16, 2017 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COOK GROUP INCORPORATED and COOK MEDICAL LLC, Petitioner,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. The disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court of
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. The court issues this order to resolve the areas of disagreement between the parties relating to claim construction.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. BROOKTROUT, INC, v. EICON NETWORKS CORPORATION. Civil Action No. 2:03-CV-59 July 28, 2004. Samuel Franklin Baxter, Emily A. Berger, McKool,
More informationLanny Steven Kurzweil, McCarter & English, LLP, Newark, NJ, for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants.
United States District Court, D. New Jersey. MARS, INCORPORATED, et als, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim Defendants. v. COIN ACCEPTORS, INC, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. Civil Action No. 90-49 (JCL)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION TINNUS ENTERPRISES, LLC, ZURU LTD., v. Plaintiffs, TELEBRANDS CORPORATION, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00033-RWS
More informationThe use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings
Question Q229 National Group: United States Title: The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent proceedings Contributors: ADAMO, Kenneth R. ARROYO, Blas ASHER, Robert BAIN, Joseph MEUNIER, Andrew
More informationIn June 2015, the Federal Circuit in Williamson v. Citrix
A Publication of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association December 2016/January 2017 The Report Has Functional Claiming Functionally Changed Since Williamson v. Citrix? Recent District Court
More informationKSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees
KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry
More informationPaper Date: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: August 26, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD COVIDIEN LP Petitioner v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. Patent
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More informationOLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, v. Plaintiffs, CANON, INC. et al., Defendants. / TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES
More informationPATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO
PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO Robert W. Bahr Acting Associate Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy United States Patent and Trademark Office 11/17/2016 1 The U.S. patent system
More informationBaffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation
NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall 2004 Article 9 10-1-2004 Baffled: Phillips v. AWH Corp. and the Reexamination of Dictionary Use in Patent Claim Interpretation Daniel S.
More informationUnited States District Court, D. Minnesota.
United States District Court, D. Minnesota. FLOE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and Wayne G. Floe, Plaintiffs. v. NEWMANS' MANUFACTURING INCORPORATED, Defendant. and Newmans' Manufacturing Incorporated, Counter-Claimant.
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. ANDREW CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. BEVERLY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. ANDREW CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. BEVERLY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant. Dec. 1, 2006. Background: Patent holder brought action against
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reexamination Nos. 95/000,066 & 95/000,069) C. BROWN LINGAMFELTER, Appellant, v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR,
More informationCase 4:16-cv Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 08/15/16 Page 1 of 32 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Case 4:16-cv-00936 Document 11 Filed in TXSD on 08/15/16 Page 1 of 32 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IKAN INTERNATIONAL, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. LLC ) ) 4:16 - CV - 00936
More informationClaim Drafting in View of Recent Litigation -- or -- The Top 5 Ways to Destroy Your Client's Patent Rights, As Taught by the Courts
Claim Drafting in View of Recent Litigation -- or -- The Top 5 Ways to Destroy Your Client's Patent Rights, As Taught by the Courts Julie R. Daulton Merchant & Gould P.C. Minneapolis, Minnesota What are
More informationORDER RE: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
United States District Court, S.D. California. Randall W. ROBINSON, Plaintiff. v. ADVANCED DECOY RESEARCH, INC., George Brint, and Panic Mouse, Inc, Defendants. No. 05CV1688 BTM (CAB) Sept. 19, 2007. Background:
More informationEdwin H. Taylor, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Sunnyvale, CA, Joseph R. Bond, Heber City, UT, for
United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. INTERNATIONAL AUTOMATED SYSTEMS, INC, Plaintiff. v. DIGITAL PERSONA, INC.; Microsoft Corporation; and John Does 1-20, Defendants. No. 2:06-CV-72
More informationOBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY
OBTAINING DEFENSIBLE PATENTS IN THE PST INDUSTRY Mark P. Levy, Intellectual Property Practice Group Leader, Thompson Hine LLP., Dayton, Ohio I. The name of the game is the claim. As Judge Rich, one of
More informationCLAIM CONSTRUCTION RULING
United States District Court, D. Connecticut. CLEARWATER SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. EVAPCO, INC., et al, Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:05cv507 (SRU) May 16, 2008. Background: Manufacturer of non-chemical
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1414 BIAGRO WESTERN SALES, INC. and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, GROW MORE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553
More informationMEMORANDUM ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division. MGM WELL SERVICES, INC, Plaintiff. v. MEGA LIFT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant. Feb. 10, 2006. Joseph Dean Lechtenberger, Howrey LLP, Houston, TX, for
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit APEX INC., Plaintiff- Appellant, v. RARITAN COMPUTER, INC., Defendant- Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1303 APEX INC., Plaintiff- Appellant, v. RARITAN COMPUTER, INC., Defendant- Appellee. James D. Berquist, Nixon & Vanderhye P.C., of Arlington,
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015
P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 7, ISSUE 24 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, (June 16, 2015) (en banc) (precedential) (11-1) Patent No. 6,155,840
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit METTLER-TOLEDO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. B-TEK SCALES, LLC, Defendant-Cross Appellant. 2011-1173, -1200 Appeals from the United States District
More informationComments on: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications, 78 Fed. Reg (January 15, 2013)
The Honorable Teresa Stanek Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent and Trademark Office
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KARLIN TECHNOLOGY INC. and SOFAMOR DANEK GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants,
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 97-1470 KARLIN TECHNOLOGY INC. and SOFAMOR DANEK GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellants, v. SURGICAL DYNAMICS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee. Donald R. Dunner,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant. ORDER ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION BONUTTI RESEARCH, INC., JOINT ACTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., vs. LANTZ MEDICAL, INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1:14-cv-00609-SEB-MJD
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION SAFOCO, INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-05-0739 CAMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION f/k/a COOPER CAMERON CORPORATION,
More informationPATENT PROSECUTION TIPS FROM THE TRENCHES
PATENT PROSECUTION TIPS FROM THE TRENCHES By Marin Cionca; OCIPLA Luncheon - May 17, 2018 1. The use of Functional Claim Language in view of recent court decisions and the January 2018 update to the MPEP
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. PALMTOP PRODUCTIONS, INC, Plaintiff. v. LO-Q PLC, et al, Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division. PALMTOP PRODUCTIONS, INC, Plaintiff. v. LO-Q PLC, et al, Defendants. Civil Action File No. 1:04-CV-3606-TWT Aug. 28, 2006. Background: Action
More informationUnited States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORP, v. WG SECURITY PRODUCTS, INC. Civil Action No.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS CORP, v. WG SECURITY PRODUCTS, INC. Civil Action No. 2:04-CV-167 Nov. 22, 2005. Otis W. Carroll, Jr., Collin Michael
More informationSid Leach, Monica Anne Limon-Wynn, Wendy Sue Neal, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant.
United States District Court, D. Arizona. COMTECH EF DATA CORPORATION, Plaintiff. v. RADYNE CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CV-06-1132-PHX-MHM Oct. 12, 2007. James Robert Farmer, Van Cott Bagley Cornwall &
More informationPatent Exam Fall 2015
Exam No. This examination consists of five short answer questions 2 hours ******** Computer users: Please use the Exam4 software in take-home mode. Answers may alternatively be hand-written. Instructions:
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD FACEBOOK, INC., Petitioner v. SOUND VIEW INNOVATIONS, LLC, Patent Owner Case No. Patent No. 6,125,371 PETITIONER S REQUEST
More informationLEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC,
United States District Court, D. New Mexico. LEVITON MANUFACTURING CO., INC, Plaintiff. v. ZHEJIANG DONGZHENG ELECTRICAL CO., Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Nicor, Inc., d/b/a Nicor Lighting & Fans, and
More informationThe Patent Specification pt. 1; Claims pt. 1
PATENT LAW Randy Canis CLASS 7 The Patent Specification pt. 1; Claims pt. 1 1 The Patent Specification pt. 1 2 The Patent Specification What must the specification describe? 3 Patent Specification Requirements
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CRAIG THORNER AND, VIRTUAL REALITY FEEDBACK CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA LLC, SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
More informationORDER RULING ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARGUMENTS
United States District Court, C.D. California. DEALERTRACK, INC, Plaintiff. v. David L. HUBER, Finance Express LLC, and John Doe Dealers, Defendants. Dealertrack, Inc, Plaintiff. v. Routeone LLC, David
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AUTOFORM ENGINEERING GMBH, CASE NO. 10-14141 v. PLAINTIFF, ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1392 SENTRY PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC. and HERO PRODUCTS, INC., v. EAGLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee. Lesley
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PanOptis Patent Management, LLC et al v. BlackBerry Limited et al Doc. 98 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PANOPTIS PATENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al., v.
More informationWinning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board
Winning a Non-Obviousness Case at the Board Michael Messinger Director, Electrical and Clean Tech April 22, 2010 Obvious Not Obvious 2 Ratcheting Up a Non-Obviousness Position Attack with Argument Only
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION RIDDELL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 16 C 4496 ) KRANOS CORPORATION d/b/a SCHUTT ) SPORTS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1247 RONALD E. ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationPRUDENT PATENT PROSECUTION UNDER FESTO. By: Robert H. Resis
PRUDENT PATENT PROSECUTION UNDER FESTO By: Robert H. Resis I. INTRODUCTION On May 28, 2002, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kabushiki Co, 535 U.S. 722, 122 S.
More informationPaper 42 Tel: Entered: January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 42 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: January 30, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD TOYOTA MOTOR CORP., Petitioner, v. LEROY G. HAGENBUCH,
More informationMICREL INC, Plaintiff. v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Michael R. Hsing, James C. Moyer, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. California. MICREL INC, Plaintiff. v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Michael R. Hsing, James C. Moyer, and Does 1 through 20, Defendants. No. C 04-04770 JSW June 28,
More informationPaper Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 10 571-272-7822 Entered: April 21, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD KASPERSKY LAB, INC., Petitioner, v. UNILOC USA, INC. and
More informationFOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA CAYENNE MEDICAL, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MEDSHAPE, INC., a Georgia corporation, ) KURT JACOBUS, KEN GALL, TIMOTHY ) NASH, AND
More informationUnited States District Court, N.D. California. AMERICAN PILEDRIVING EQUIPMENT, INC, Plaintiff. v. BAY MACHINERY CORPORATION, Defendant.
United States District Court, N.D. California. AMERICAN PILEDRIVING EQUIPMENT, INC, Plaintiff. v. BAY MACHINERY CORPORATION, Defendant. No. C 08-1934 PJH June 12, 2009. Background: Holder of patent relating
More informationAndrew B. Morton, Laura J. Gentilcore, Ray L. Weber, Renner, Kenner, Greive, Bobak, Taylor & Weber, Akron, OH, for Plaintiff.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division. WAYNE-DALTON CORP, Plaintiff. v. AMARR COMPANY, Defendant. Sept. 5, 2007. Andrew B. Morton, Laura J. Gentilcore, Ray L. Weber, Renner, Kenner,
More informationPatent Eligibility Trends Since Alice
Patent Eligibility Trends Since Alice 2014 Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Nate Bailey Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 35 U.S.C. 101 Whoever invents or discovers any new and
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust,
Case No. 2013-1130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, CITRIX SYSTEMS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION FRENI BREMBO, S.p.A. and ) BREMBO NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No. 04 C 5217 ) ALCON COMPONENTS,
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. LAROSE INDUSTRIES, LLC Petitioner. CAPRIOLA CORP.
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37 571-272-7822 Entered: June 26, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD LAROSE INDUSTRIES, LLC Petitioner v. CAPRIOLA CORP. Patent
More informationRECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
The University of Texas School of Law 20th ANNUAL ADVANCED PATENT LAW INSTITUTE RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CLAIM CONSTRUCTION November 5-6, 2015 Four Seasons Hotel Austin, Texas Kenneth R. Adamo* Kirkland
More informationBROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF LAW Presented: 19 th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute November 6-7, 2014 Austin, Texas BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATION Mark E. Scott Darlene F. Ghavimi Author contact
More informationCase 9:07-cv RC Document 181 Filed 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 11 ** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION **
Case 9:07-cv-00104-RC Document 181 Filed 03/06/2009 Page 1 of 11 ** NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION ** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION HEARING COMPONENTS,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION
Graco Children's Products Inc. v. Kids II, Inc. Doc. 96 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GRACO CHILDREN S PRODUCTS INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL
More informationPaper 6 Tel: Entered: August 14, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 6 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: August 14, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD E INK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. RESEARCH FRONTIERS
More information