(Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "(Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT"

Transcription

1 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. HAGUE Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE METHOD PRODUCTS, INC. May 23, 2012 Tracy-Gene G. Durkin David K. S. Cornwell Jon E. Wright Jonathan M. Strang STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C New York Ave., N.W. Washington, DC (202) Counsel for Amicus Curiae

2 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Counsel for amicus Method Products, Inc. certifies the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is: Method Products Inc. 2. The name of the real party in interest represented by me is: The same as All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me are listed below for each amici: None 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court are: STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX, P.L.L.C.: Tracy-Gene G. Durkin, David K. S. Cornwell, Jon E. Wright, and Jonathan M. Strang. Date: May 23, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tracy-Gene G. Durkin Counsel for Amicus Curiae Method Products Inc.

3 CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE... 1 INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT... 2 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... 2 ARGUMENT... 4 I. The Office has historically allowed applicants to claim less than the complete article disclosed in the original application II. The Office has no clear policy on the written description requirement A. The Office s own guidance further confuses the issue... 8 B. The Office s surreptitious policy shift finds no basis in the statute, rules, MPEP or case law III. There may be unintended consequences of affirming the Board decision without addressing written description law as applied to design patents CONCLUSION i -

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Statutes 35 U.S.C U.S.C Other Authorities Manual of Patent Examining Procedure , 13 ii

5 This brief is filed on behalf of Method Products, Inc. ( Method ). Method submits this brief as amicus curiae pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29 and Fed. Cir. Rule 29. All parties to the appeal have consented to this amicus brief; accordingly, no motion for leave is provided. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE Method is a small privately held company whose business in innovation and product design will be substantively and adversely affected if the panel decision stands. Method Products is one of the fastest growing private companies in America and a leading innovator of premium healthy home and personal care products. Method s products can be found in more than 25,000 retail locations throughout the U.S., Canada, the U.K., France and Australia. Under the direction of world renowned designer Josh Handy, Method s products have become small works of art for millions of homes. Method has significant experience with and supports a strong and effective United States design patent system. In filing this brief, Method seeks to present the Court with a practical view of the challenges design patent applicants routinely face. Method has no commercial interest in the parties to this action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 29(c)(5), Method further states that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation - 1 -

6 or submission of this brief. No person other than Method or its counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT Method urges the Court to address the Board s written description analysis and provide guidance consistent with the positions expressed herein. Specifically, Method urges the Court to resist the Board s attempt to avoid applying the statutory written description requirement in design patent applications. Rather than determining whether one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would conclude that the applicants possessed the claimed design at the time of filing, the Board has fashioned an inappropriate and unworkable per se rule that does not fit in the statutory scheme. Specifically, the test for written description support is whether the claimed portion of a product is described in the original drawings. The test is not whether an unclaimed border happens to falls on a natural boundary of the original drawing. To simply affirm the Board s decision will implicitly confirm the Board s unworkable and improper test, and could put into doubt the validity of countless existing design patents. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Until recent years, design patent applicants confidently and efficiently protected their designs by filing an original application completely disclosing an - 2 -

7 article embodying an overall design. Applicants subsequently claimed separately patentable portions of the originally-disclosed design. Examination of the initial application illuminated the full scope of the protectable designs, while market forces then helped identify the commercially-valuable designs embodied in the article. After the overall design was allowed, design patent applicants then focused on the disclosed designs which merit separate design protection in, for example, a continuation application. To separately claim a portion of the overall design, applicants amended the original figures by inserting unclaimed boundary lines (typically represented by dashed or dot-dashed broken lines) to indicate the boundaries of the claimed subject matter. The Board decision and recent informal Office guidance, however, no longer consistently allow this efficient practice. To achieve comprehensive protection, design patent applicants are now forced to include in the original filing separate drawings showing the entire design as well as every possible protectable design. As a result, some applicants are now filing over a hundred drawings in a single design patent application. Contrary to the Office s position, this practice is not required by the written description requirement, and it unnecessarily burdens the applicant while providing no discernible benefit to the Office. In addition, the resulting patent portfolio is not as robust as it could be. To draw an analogy to utility patents, filing every possible permutation of a design contemporaneously - 3 -

8 with an original design patent application is the equivalent of drafting a full and comprehensive claim set for an invention with an original utility patent application, without an opportunity to subsequently amend during prosecution. If a feature no matter how simple or small is adequately described in the original drawings, there is no lack of written description. Should an over-zealous applicant attempt to claim a portion of a design that was described in the original filing but is known in the prior art, the application should be rejected as anticipated or obvious. On the other hand, if an applicant attempts to claim a portion of a design that is completely described but not prominently featured in the originallyfiled drawings, the Examiner has the power to request a supplemental oath to ensure applicant is indeed the inventor. ARGUMENT Method seeks to inform the Court of the challenges it and other design patent owners will face if the Court merely affirms the Board decision as supported by substantial evidence without an analysis of the Board s underlying legal rationale. I. The Office has historically allowed applicants to claim less than the complete article disclosed in the original application. In the undersigneds extensive experience practicing design patent law, applicants have saved time and money by initially claiming the entire design of an article of manufacture, and then later concentrating on the separately patentable - 4 -

9 designs described in the original application. To claim these separatee designs, applicants inserted unclaimed boundary lines to indicate the termination of the claimed design. This brief uses one patented example to illustrate the technique, and several more are included in Exhibit A. 1 These examples are not outliers, but are representative of what was once a prevalent and efficient practice. Application Ser. No. 29/251,426 6, entitled Humidifier Unit and Tub, was filed on January 9, 2006 claiming the entire article as shown below: The application issued as U..S. Patent No. D545, 954 on July 3, 2007 with the same Figures as filed. On March 26, 2007, Applicants filed a continuation application entitled A Portion of a Humidifier Unit and Tub, U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/274, 056, claiming only a portion of what wass disclosedd in the original parent application, by inserting at least three new unclaimed boundary lines: 1 The examples cited herein are not ownedd by Method. They were found using publicly available patent databases

10 (arrows added to indicate new unclaimed boundary lines). This continuation application issued as U.S. Patent No. D555, 236,, with no further changes to the originally filed Figures. On September 26, 2007, Applicants filed U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/287, 841, a continuation of the child 056 application, claiming a portion of that which was claimed in the child, also using new unclaimed boundary lines: - 6 -

11 (arrows added to indicate new boundary lines). This application issued as U.S. Patent No. D569, 958, Portion of a Humidifier Tub on May 27, 2008 with the same drawing Figures as originally filed in the application.. As illustrated in the above example, applicants did not submit drawings showing every possible design described in the original disclosure when filing the original application. Doing so might have invitedd a restriction requirement, slowing prosecution. Instead, applicants filed a full and complete disclosure, and then efficiently filed separate continuation applications, each having a different claim scope demarked using unclaimed boundaryy lines

12 II. The Office has no clear policy on the written description requirement. The humidifier example above was examined at around the same time as the case at bar. This illustrates that the Office does not have a coherent policy on written description. A. The Office s own guidance further confusess the issue During USPTO Design Day 2012 held at the Office on April 10, 2012, the Office explained that, in general, changing solid lines to broken lines does not create a written description issue. To illustrate itss written description policy, the Office showed the following example: (USPTO presentation, Describing the Design Applied at 7; attached as Exhibit C). When presenting this slide, the Office explained that the amendedd design was - 8 -

13 adequately described in the original design because all boundaries, ncluding those represented by broken lines, are present in the original design. The Office next attempted to explain whenn an unclaimed boundary can be added to an original disclosure without running afoul of the written description requirement: (Id. at 8.) The Office explained that the amendedd design was adequately described by the original design because the unclaimed boundary was added where the bottle changes curvature. According to this reasoning, however, the Office should not have allowed the humidifier continuation applications described above to claim priority to the - 9 -

14 parent application. Yet the Office did. The Container example in Exhibit A, which issued as recently as May 31, 2011, suggests that the Office is still not consistently applying its own tests, but instead seems intent on confusing the design patent bar. The bottle example from the Design Day presentation above raises more questions than it answers. For example, what happens if the boundary line is moved 1 millimeter up or down the bottle? Does the amended design suddenly lack written description support? If 1 millimeter is acceptable, is 1 centimeter or halfway up to the bottle neck acceptable? The Office has not provided the public with a reasonable explanation of why one of skill in the art would conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed design in one of these situations but not another. A third example (an enlarged portion of a tire tread) presented at Design Day further highlights the Office s confusion regarding its own test. In the following example, the Office stated that the newly-added unclaimed boundary lines are not permissible:

15 (Id. at 9-10.) Yet the highlighted design on the far right of the slide is no different than what is shown in the humidifier and container examples. Furthermore, the highlighted design on the left of the right side of the slide is precisely what the MPEP has permitted since 1998: the addition of a straight broken line connecting the ends of full lines defining the claimed design. MPEP (7th ed., July 1998 to current 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010). The only conclusion that can be drawn from these examples the issued patents described herein, the case at bar, and the examples presented at Design Day is that the Office has no clearly articulated policy on when unclaimed boundary lines can be added to an initial disclosure

16 B. The Office s surreptitious policy shift finds no basis in the statute, rules, MPEP or case law. Without any notice and without any change to the Office s published written procedures, the Board s decision in the case at bar and the materials presented at Design Day this year indicate an attempt to change the Office s design patent examination practice. The undersigned are not aware of any Federal Circuit case or any change to the statutes or regulations that could have prompted the Office to adopt a new written description test for design patents. For example, the relevant portion of the MPEP does not address the issue directly, and has not changed since it was introduced in July of 1998: Applicant may choose to define the bounds of a claimed design with broken lines when the boundary does not exist in reality in the article embodying the design. It would be understood that the claimed design extends to the boundary but does not include the boundary. Where no boundary line is shown in a design application as originally filed, but it is clear from the design specification that the boundary of the claimed design is a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed design, applicant may amend the drawing(s) to add a straight broken line connecting the ends of existing full lines defining the claimed subject matter. Any broken line boundary other than a straight broken line may constitute new matter prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f)

17 MPEP (7th ed., July 1998 to current 8th ed., Rev. 8, July 2010). The rules and statutes have remained similarly unchanged with respect to design patent written description requirements. III. There may be unintended consequences of affirming the Board decision without addressing written description law as applied to design patents. Should the Court affirm the Board s decision without addressing the proper application of the statutory written description requirement to design patents, applicants cannot reliably predict how the Office will examine design patent applications in the future. Currently, the safest path for design patent applicants is expensive. Instead of efficiently prosecuting a patent family, as the applicants did in the humidifier example above, applicants desiring comprehensive protection must instead file every conceivable permutation of the overall design that might warrant protection. But because the preparation of drawings is the most costly part of preparing a design patent application, this strategy can be prohibitively expensive. Indeed, some applicants are already incurring this significant but unnecessary expense. As shown in Exhibit B, in one case, applicants filed more than one hundred drawings in an initial design patent filing in an attempt to capture all patentable aspects of the disclosed design. In the other example in Exhibit B, applicants filed 58 drawings. Applicants less able to absorb the costs of having countless drawings made may decide to gamble that the Office will treat its family

18 of applications like the Office treated the family shown in Exhibit A. Yet other applicants, naïve to the Office s shifting undocumented policy, may have already filed original design applications claiming only the complete article believing they had preserved their right to claim all of the protectable designs of the original disclosure. As is highlighted in the case at bar, such applicants may find that public sale or disclosure of their products embodying the design will prevent them from obtaining adequate protection after their initial disclosure has been timely filed. If the Court affirms the Board s decision by merely stating that there is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Office s fact-finding, the Court will in effect affirm the Office s undocumented, inconsistently applied and unsupported test. This may unfairly jeopardize many existing design patents by subjecting them to a post-issuance written description challenge. Questionable per se challenges of the type presented in this case are costly to defend and distract from the merits of the case. CONCLUSION This case illustrates the need for the Court s guidance on the proper application of the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 written description in the context of design patent applications. Specifically, Method urges this Court to find that a drawing for a complete product provides 112 written description

19 support for a patent claim to a portion of that product having an unclaimed boundary even if the unclaimed boundary does not align with a natural boundary of the entire product. Clarity is needed because the Office is calling into question a once common and efficient practice for both applicants and the Office without basis in the patent statute or case law. Accordingly, the Office's per se test in the present case should be reversed. Date: May 23, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tracy-Gene G. Durkin David K.S. Cornwell Jon E. Wright Jonathan M. Strang STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C New York Ave., N.W. Washington, DC Tel: (202) Fax: (202) tdurkin@skgf.com ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE: Method Products, Inc

20 Exhibit A Excerpts from other Design Patents and Applications

21 Exhibit A Table of Contents Container to Taylor, et al Bottle/Flask to Rica... 3 Bottle to Snyder, et al Humidifier to Snow, et al... 8

22 Container to Taylor, et al. Parent: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/363,488, filed June 10, 2010, issued as U.S. Patent No. D628,469 on December 7, Child: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/378,646 filed November 8, 2010, issued as U.S. Patent No. D638,699 on May 31, Note: all information excerpted from publicly available sources (patents and file histories on Public PAIR) 1

23 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) 2

24 Bottle/Flask to Rica Parent: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/301,064, filed Feb. 6, 2008, issued as U.S. Patent No. D596,491 on July 21, Child: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/330,535 filed January 8, 2009, issued as U.S. Patent No. D612,242 on March 23, Note: all information excerpted from publicly available sources (patents and file histories on Public PAIR) 3

25 Parent Application (replacement dwgs) 1 1 Replacment drawings were submitted to correct minor issues noted in Office Action Child Patent (as issued) 4

26 Parent Application (replacement dwgs) Child Patent (as issued) 5

27 Bottle to Snyder, et al. Parent: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/276,737, filed Feb. 2, 2007, issued as U.S. Patent No. D566,562 on April 15, Grandchild: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/323,872 filed September 2, 2008, issued as U.S. Patent No. D588,464 on March 17, Note: all information excerpted from publicly available sources (patents and file histories on Public PAIR) 6

28 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) 7

29 Humidifier to Snow, et al. Parent: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/251,426, filed January 9, 2006, issued as U.S. Patent No. D545,954 on July 3, Child: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/274,056 filed March 26, 2007, issued as U.S. Patent No. D555,236 on November 13, Grandchild: U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 29/287,841 filed September 26, 2007, issued as U.S. Patent No. D569,958 on November May 27, Note: all information excerpted from publicly available sources (patents and file histories on Public PAIR) 8

30 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) Grandchild Patent (as issued) 9

31 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) Grandchild Patent (as issued) 10

32 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) Grandchild Patent (as issued) 11

33 Parent Application (as filed) Child Patent (as issued) Grandchild Patent (as issued) 12

34 Exhibit B U.S. Patent Nos. D509,084 and D579,339, and Applications as filed

35 Exhibit B Table of Contents U.S. Patent No. D509, Application Ser. No. 29/181,503 as filed... 9 U.S. Patent No. D579, Application Ser. No. 29/252,626 as filed... 94

36 1

37 2

38 3

39 4

40 5

41 6

42 7

43 8

44 9

45 10

46 11

47 12

48 13

49 14

50 15

51 16

52 17

53 18

54 19

55 20

56 21

57 22

58 23

59 24

60 25

61 26

62 27

63 28

64 29

65 30

66 31

67 32

68 33

69 34

70 35

71 36

72 37

73 38

74 39

75 40

76 41

77 42

78 43

79 44

80 45

81 46

82 47

83 48

84 49

85 50

86 51

87 52

88 53

89 54

90 55

91 56

92 57

93 58

94 59

95 60

96 61

97 62

98 63

99 64

100 65

101 66

102 67

103 68

104 69

105 70

106 71

107 72

108 73

109 74

110 75

111 76

112 77

113 78

114 79

115 80

116 81

117 82

118 83

119 84

120 85

121 86

122 87

123 88

124 89

125 90

126 91

127 92

128 93

129 94

130 95

131 96

132 97

133 98

134 99

135 100

136 101

137 102

138 103

139 104

140 105

141 106

142 107

143 108

144 109

145 110

146 111

147 112

148 113

149 114

150 115

151 116

152 117

153 118

154 119

155 120

156 121

157 122

158 123

159 124

160 125

161 126

162 127

163 128

164 129

165 130

166 131

167 132

168 133

169 134

170 135

171 136

172 137

173 138

174 139

175 140

176 141

177 142

178 143

179 144

180 145

181 146

182 147

183 148

184 149

185 150

186 151

187 152

188 153

189 154

190 155

191 156

192 157

193 158

194 159

195 160

196 161

197 162

198 163

199 164

200 165

201 166

202 167

203 168

204 169

205 170

206 171

207 172

208 173

209 174

210 175

211 176

212 177

213 178

214 179

215 180

216 181

217 182

218 183

219 184

220 185

221 186

222 187

223 188

224 189

225 190

226 191

227 192

228 193

229 194

230 195

231 Exhibit C United States Patent Office Design Day presentation

232 Describing the Design Applied United States Patent and Trademark Office

233 Describing the Design Applied It is the drawings of the design patent that provide the description of the invention. In re Daniels 46 USPQ2d 1788 (Fed. Cir. 1998)

234 Describing the Design Applied The invention is not the article and is not the design per se, but is the design applied. *** It should be "clear without further explanation or illustration just how the article will look with the design applied to it." In re Schnell, 8 USPQ 19 (CCPA 1931) quoting Ex parte Cady, 1916 C. D. 62, 232 O. G. 621

235 Describing the Design Applied In this single-view disclosure, we must speculate as to what the article looks like with the design applied. The figure is a side elevation view of a container showing our new design.

236 Describing the Design Applied Figure 3 is a side elevation view of a container from Design Patent D577,747 and Figure 1 is a perspective view. Fig. 3 Fig. 1

237 Describing the Design Applied In this single-view disclosure, we do not see what the article looks like with the design applied. The figure is a front elevational view of a package with surface decoration showing our new design. The broken lines illustrate a portion of the package surface and form no part of the claimed design.

238 Describing the Design Applied Is the design on the right described in the design on the left? Storage Bin The broken lines illustrate portions of the storage bin that form no part of the claimed design. Original design Amended design

239 Describing the Design Applied Is the design on the right described in the design on the left? Bottle The dash-dash lines illustrate portions of the bottle that form no part of the claimed design. The dash-dot line marks the boundary of the claimed design but is not included in the claim. Original design Amended design

240 Describing the Design Applied Is the design on the right described in the design on the left? Detail of a tire tread design Original design Amended design The dash-dash lines illustrate portions of the tread that form no part of the claimed design. The dash-dot lines mark the boundary of the claimed design but are not included in the claim.

241 Describing the Design Applied The highlighted shapes on the right are not described in the design on the left. Detail of a tire tread design Original design Amended design The dash-dash lines illustrate portions of the tread that form no part of the claimed design. The dash-dot lines mark the boundary of the claimed design but are not included in the claim.

242 Thank you Joel Sincavage Design Practice Specialist United States Patent and Trademark Office

243 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 23 rd day of May, 2012, a copy of the foregoing CORRECTED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE METHOD PRODUCTS, INC. was filed using the CM/ECF system with the Clerk of Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The CM/ECF system will send a notification of said filing (Notice of Docket Activity) to all registered counsel of record, which constitutes service of said filing. In addition, a copy of the foregoing CORRECTED BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE METHOD PRODUCTS, INC. will be served on the following principal counsel of record via Raymond T. Chen United States Patent & Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Mail Stop 8 Alexandria, VA (571) Fax: (571) Ray.Chen@uspto.gov Counsel for Appellee David J. Kappos, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Perry J. Saidman Saidman DesignLaw Group, LLC 8601 Georgia Ave., Suite 603 Silver Spring, MD (301) Fax: (301) perry.saidman@designlawgroup.com Counsel for Appellants Jason C. Campbell, Philip E. Hague, Robert M. Lynch, IV, Sheila M. Kelly, and Timothy S. Owens - 1 -

244 Date: May 23, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tracy-Gene G. Durkin Counsel for Amicus Curiae Method Products Inc

245 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATION, TYPEFACE REQUIREMENTS, AND TYPE STYLE REQUIREMENTS 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(e). The brief contains 2,505 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28.1(e) and the type style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6). The brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010 in 14-point Times New Roman. Date: May 23, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Tracy-Gene G. Durkin Counsel for Amicus Curiae Method Products Inc

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, AND PHILIP E. HAGUE. 2012-1261 Appeal from the United States Patent

More information

(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E.

(Serial No. 29/253,172) IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. Case: 12-1261 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 08/24/2012 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 12-1261 Document: 27 Page: 1 Filed: 05/23/2012 Corrected 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2012-1261 (Serial No. 29/253,172) United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE TIMOTHY S. OWENS, SHEILA M. KELLY, ROBERT M. LYNCH, IV, JASON C. CAMPBELL, and PHILIP E. HAGUE Appeal from

More information

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC.,

Case Nos , UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., ILLUMINA, INC., Case Nos. 2016-2388, 2017-1020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., v. ILLUMINA, INC., ANDREI IANCU, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Appellant, Appellee,

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC. Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Case No , & (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 13-4330 Document: 003111516193 Page: 5 Date Filed: 01/24/2014 Case No. 13-4330, 13-4394 & 13-4501 (consolidated) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 13-1564 Document: 138 140 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015 2013-1564 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLOG AND SCA PERSONAL CARE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 16-1284 Document: 173 Page: 1 Filed: 07/14/2017 2016-1284, -1787 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A., v. Plaintiff-Appellee, TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,

More information

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted

Chapter 1900 Protest Protest Under 37 CFR [R ] How Protest Is Submitted Chapter 1900 Protest 1901 Protest Under 37 CFR 1.291 1901.01 Who Can Protest 1901.02 Information Which Can Be Relied on in Protest 1901.03 How Protest Is Submitted 1901.04 When Should the Protest Be Submitted

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2011-1301 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, Plaintiff-Appellee, and CLS SERVICES LTD., Counterclaim-Defendant Appellee, v. ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Defendant-Appellant.

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15-3452 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Respondent-Appellant. Appeal From

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 17-51063 Document: 00514380489 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF

More information

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 1:11-mc RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Case 1:11-mc-00295-RLW Document 1 Filed 05/17/11 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE THIRD PARTY SUBPOENAS AD TESTIFICANDUM Case No. Nokia Corporation, Apple Inc.,

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1219 Document #1693477 Filed: 09/18/2017 Page 1 of 11 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED: OCTOBER 17, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) UTILITY SOLID

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORP. AND REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioners v. IMMUNEX CORPORATION,

More information

Chapter 1500 Design Patents

Chapter 1500 Design Patents Chapter 1500 Design Patents 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable 1502 Definition of a Design 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application 1503.01 Specification

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, GENZYME CORP. AND REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Petitioners v. IMMUNEX CORPORATION,

More information

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 16, 2009 The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit proposes to amend its Rules. These amendments are

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V.,

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Case: 16-1346 Document: 105 Page: 1 Filed: 09/26/2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2016-1346 REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., v. MERUS N.V., Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee.

More information

Chapter 1500 Design Patents

Chapter 1500 Design Patents Chapter 1500 Design Patents 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable 1502 Definition of a Design 1502.01 Distinction Between Design and Utility Patents 1503 Elements of a Design Patent Application 1503.01 Specification

More information

United States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit Case: 12-1170 Case: CASE 12-1170 PARTICIPANTS Document: ONLY 99 Document: Page: 1 97 Filed: Page: 03/10/2014 1 Filed: 03/07/2014 2012-1170 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SUPREMA,

More information

A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO

A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com A Survey Of Patent Owner Estoppel At USPTO

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1492 Document #1696614 Filed: 10/03/2017 Page 1 of 9 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 9, 2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ) SIERRA CLUB,

More information

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.

Nos (L), IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Appeal: 13-2419 Doc: 46-1 Filed: 02/11/2014 Pg: 1 of 11 Nos. 13-2419 (L), 13-2424 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PPL ENERGYPLUS, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. DOUGLAS

More information

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Manual of Patent Examining Procedures(MPEP) Chapter 1500 Design Patents Ninth Edition, November 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1501 Statutes and Rules Applicable[R-07.2015] 1502 Definition

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, No. 16-60104 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUSAN L. VAUGHAN, v. Plaintiff- Appellant, ANDERSON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District

More information

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees.

[ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. Defendants-Appellees. USCA Case #14-5243 Document #1672205 Filed: 04/21/2017 Page 1 of 5 [ORAL ARGUMENT HELD ON APRIL 15, 2016] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PERRY CAPITAL, LLC,

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D.

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, CHARLES D. Appellate Case: 17-4059 Document: 01019889341 01019889684 Date Filed: 10/23/2017 Page: 1 No. 17-4059 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

I. E. Manufacturing LLC ( applicant ) seeks to register. the mark shown below for eyewear; sunglasses; goggles for

I. E. Manufacturing LLC ( applicant ) seeks to register. the mark shown below for eyewear; sunglasses; goggles for This Decision is a Precedent of the TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 jk Mailed: July 14, 2010 Opposition No. 91191988

More information

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.

Nos & IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. Nos. 16-2721 & 16-2944 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COOPER TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Petitioner/Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Repondent/Cross-Petitioner.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 15-40238 Document: 00512980287 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/24/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) Case Number: 15-40238

More information

~O~rE~ OFFICE OF PETITIONS JAN Haisam Yakoub 2700 Saratoga Place #815 Ottawa ON K1T 1W4 CA CANADA

~O~rE~ OFFICE OF PETITIONS JAN Haisam Yakoub 2700 Saratoga Place #815 Ottawa ON K1T 1W4 CA CANADA UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ~O~rE~ JAN 2 0 2016 Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov OFFICE OF PETITIONS

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice. Federal Circuit Rule 1 Rule 1. Scope of Rules; Title United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice Federal Circuit Rule 1 (a) Reference to District and Trial Courts and Agencies.

More information

Comments on Proposed Changes to Restriction Practice in Patent Applications

Comments on Proposed Changes to Restriction Practice in Patent Applications Via Electronic Mail Restriction_Comments@uspto.gov Mr. Robert Stoll Commissioner for Patents Mail Stop Comments Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313 1450 Re: Comments on Proposed Changes to Restriction

More information

The petition to change patent term adjustment determination under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) from 153 days to a 318 days is DENIED.

The petition to change patent term adjustment determination under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) from 153 days to a 318 days is DENIED. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. MAILED P.O. BOX 1022 SEP 13 2011 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440-1022 OFFICE OF PETITIONS In re Patent No. 7,855,318 Xu Issue Date: December 21, 2010

More information

The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence

The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Patent Bar's Role In Setting PTAB Precedence Law360,

More information

Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy

Deputy 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 information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO Appellee-Defendant, Appellee-Intervenor-Defendant. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., Appellants-Plaintiffs, V. CASE NO. 15-4270 JON HUSTED, in his Official Capacity as Ohio Secretary of State, and THE

More information

The Patent Examination Manual. Section 10: Meaning of useful. Meaning of useful. No clear statement of utility. Specific utility

The Patent Examination Manual. Section 10: Meaning of useful. Meaning of useful. No clear statement of utility. Specific utility The Patent Examination Manual Section 10: Meaning of useful An invention, so far as claimed in a claim, is useful if the invention has a specific, credible, and substantial utility. Meaning of useful 1.

More information

Will the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly. Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends

Will the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly. Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends Will the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Rely Upon Dictionary Definitions Newly Cited in Appeal Briefs? Answer: It Depends By Richard Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 I. INTRODUCTION Should dictionary

More information

MEMORANDUM. DATE: April 19, 2018 TO: FROM:

MEMORANDUM. DATE: April 19, 2018 TO: FROM: ii ~ %~fj ~ ~ ~htofeo~ UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov MEMORANDUM DATE:

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. MARK HOHIDER, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. MARK HOHIDER, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. No. 07-4588 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT MARK HOHIDER, et al. v. Plaintiffs-Appellees, UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal From The United States

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 14-1294 Document: 205 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2016 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-1085 Document #1725473 Filed: 04/05/2018 Page 1 of 15 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES AGAINST TOXICS,

More information

PATENT DISCLOSURE: Meeting Expectations in the USPTO

PATENT 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 information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent. Case: 18-2195 CASE PARTICIPANTS ONLY Document: 20-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/20/2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT JEFFREY F. SAYERS Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent.

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC.,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., ADVANCED MEDICAL OPTICS INC., Case: 10-15222 11/14/2011 ID: 7963092 DktEntry: 45-2 Page: 1 of 17 No. 10-15222 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEXIS DEGELMANN, et al., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, ADVANCED

More information

Appeals from the Central Reexamination Unit

Appeals from the Central Reexamination Unit The University of Texas School of Law Presented: 5 th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute - USPTO-PV10 January 21-22, 2010 United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA Appeals from the Central

More information

Patent Prosecution Update

Patent Prosecution Update Patent Prosecution Update March 2012 Contentious Proceedings at the USPTO Under the America Invents Act by Rebecca M. McNeill The America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) makes significant changes to contentious

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 07-56424 08/24/2009 Page: 1 of 6 DktEntry: 7038488 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROBERT M. NELSON, et al. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. 07-56424 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS

More information

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Nos , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 14-1361 Document: 83 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2014 Nos. 14-1361, -1366 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IN RE BRCA1- AND BRCA2-BASED HEREDITARY CANCER TEST PATENT LITIGATION

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 19-10011 Document: 00514897527 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2019 No. 19-10011 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT STATE OF TEXAS; STATE OF WISCONSIN; STATE OF ALABAMA; STATE OF ARIZONA;

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 14-1294 Document: 71 Page: 1 Filed: 10/31/2014 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 10-290 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States MICROSOFT CORPORATION, PETITIONER, V. I4I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element is Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility

Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element is Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 04/20/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-08428, and on FDsys.gov [3510-16-P] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, No (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1363 Document #1600435 Filed: 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 2, 2016 No. 15-1363 (and consolidated cases) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 17-104 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 11/02/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner. No. 2017-104 [Fed. Cl. No. 13-465C] OPPOSED

More information

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: February 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Paper 17 Tel: Entered: February 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trials@uspto.gov Paper 17 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: February 6, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECURUS

More information

Case No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust,

Case 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 information

HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE:

HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: HOW TO EVALUATE WHEN A REISSUE VIOLATES THE RECAPTURE RULE: #8 Collected Case Law, Rules, and MPEP Materials 2004 Kagan Binder, PLLC How to Evaluate When a Reissue violates the Recapture Rule: Collected

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Appellate Case: 12-5136 Document: 01019118132 Date Filed: 08/30/2013 Page: 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Appellee/Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 12-5134 &

More information

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello

United States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello United States Author Daniel Fiorello Legal framework The United States offers protection for designs in a formal application procedure resulting in a design patent. Design patents protect the non-functional

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner Paper 29 Filed: April 25, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Petitioner v. CHANBOND, LLC Patent Owner PATENT OWNER CHANBOND, LLC

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 MAl LEu.usp1o.gov MAR 08 Z007 CENTRAL REEXAMINATION

More information

1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

1~~~rew OFFICE OF PETITIONS RELEVANT BACKGROUND OCT UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov OLIFF PLC P.O. BOX 320850 ALEXANDRIA VA

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Case: 12-1150 Document: 003111187849 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Daniel J. Piszczatoski, et al., No. 12-1150 Appellants, v. The Hon. Rudolph

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants) 2007-1232 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT In re Lewis Ferguson et al (Appellants) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Case: 16-11051 Document: 00513873039 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 No. 16-11051 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN RE: DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., PINNACLE HIP IMPLANT PRODUCT

More information

Case No APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Agency No. A

Case No APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Agency No. A Case No. 14-35633 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JESUS RAMIREZ, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LINDA DOUGHERTY, et al. Defendants-Appellants. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT Case: 18-1514 Document: 00117374681 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/07/2018 Entry ID: 6217949 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 18-70133, 02/16/2018, ID: 10766592, DktEntry: 25, Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA and SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT,

More information

Internal Agency Review of Decisions; Requests for Supervisory Review of Certain. Decisions Made by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Internal Agency Review of Decisions; Requests for Supervisory Review of Certain. Decisions Made by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/17/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00646, and on FDsys.gov 4164-01-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4159 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (a.k.a. OOIDA ) AND SCOTT MITCHELL, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case: 18-15068, 04/10/2018, ID: 10831190, DktEntry: 137-2, Page 1 of 15 Nos. 18-15068, 18-15069, 18-15070, 18-15071, 18-15072, 18-15128, 18-15133, 18-15134 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #16-5287 Document #1720119 Filed: 02/28/2018 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, 2017 No. 16-5287 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

More information

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules. Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc.

AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules. Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc. AIA Post-Grant Proceedings: Evolution of the Rules Rachel A. Kahler, Ph.D. Patent Agent General Mills, Inc. Christopher B. Tokarczyk Attorney at Law Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox, PLLC - 1 - I. Introduction

More information

US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims

US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims US reissue procedure can fix failure to include dependent claims Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 2011 Author(s): Charles R. Macedo In re Tanaka, No. 2010-1262, US Court of Appeals for

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 05-1008 BROADCAST INNOVATION, L.L.C. and IO RESEARCH PTY LTD., v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and COMCAST CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Defendant-Appellee,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC MICROSOFT CORP.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC MICROSOFT CORP. 2015-1863 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the

More information

Change in Procedure Relating to an Application Filing Date

Change in Procedure Relating to an Application Filing Date Department of Commerce Patent and Trademark Office [Docket No. 951019254-6136-02] RIN 0651-XX05 Change in Procedure Relating to an Application Filing Date Agency: Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.

More information

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

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 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 information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 11-1016 Document: 1292714 Filed: 02/10/2011 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT METROPCS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; METROPCS 700 MHZ, LLC; METROPCS AWS,

More information

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD DR. MICHAEL FARM WALD and RPX CORPORATION Petitioner PARKERVISION, INC. Patent Owner Case 1PR2014-00947 U.S. Patent No.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1526, -1527, -1551 DOOR-MASTER CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Cross Appellant, YORKTOWNE, INC., and Defendant-Appellant, CONESTOGA WOOD SPECIALTIES,

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN)

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No (1:15-cv GBL-MSN) Appeal: 16-1110 Doc: 20-1 Filed: 01/30/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 Total Pages:(1 of 52) FILED: January 30, 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1110 (1:15-cv-00675-GBL-MSN) NATIONAL COUNCIL

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #15-1056 Document #1726769 Filed: 04/16/2018 Page 1 of 6 ORAL ARGUMENT NOT YET SCHEDULED IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association,

More information

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -

COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative

More information

Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374

Case 1:15-cv LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374 Case 1:15-cv-00014-LMB-JFA Document 37 Filed 04/03/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 374 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION AFILIAS PLC Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:15-CV-00014-LMB-JFA

More information

The Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution

The Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution The Serious Burden Requirement Has Teeth - A Prohibition on Restriction Requirements Later in Prosecution By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC 1 Rick Neifeld is the senior partner at Neifeld IP Law, PC,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Case: 08-1200 Document: 1274843 Filed: 11/01/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., Petitioners, No. 08-1200 and consolidated

More information

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #16-5287 Document #1720119 Filed: 02/28/2018 Page 1 of 5 ORAL ARGUMENT PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MARCH 31, 2017 No. 16-5287 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 16-15342 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EDWARD TUFFLY, AKA Bud Tuffly, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. ON APPEAL

More information

Nos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Nos , , , IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Case: 12-10492 09/04/2014 ID: 9229254 DktEntry: 103 Page: 1 of 20 Nos. 12-10492, 12-10493, 12-10500, 12-10514 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit No. 2016-1346 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Appellant v. MERUS N.V., Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

More information

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office)

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 01/19/2018 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2018-00769, and on FDsys.gov Billing Code: 3510-16-P DEPARTMENT OF

More information

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

[NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT USCA Case #18-5289 Document #1754028 Filed: 10/05/2018 Page 1 of 13 [NOT YET SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENT] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT AMERICAN FEDERATION

More information

No LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., In The Supreme Court of the United States

No LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-786 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., --------------------------

More information

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 16-2149 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2016 No. 2016-2149 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT EVIDEO OWNERS, MAURO DIDOMENICO, individually and on behalf of all those

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING, and JAMES RISEN, Appeal: 11-5028 Document: 67 Date Filed: 04/09/2012 Page: 1 of 6 No. 11-5028 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFREY ALEXANDER STERLING,

More information