Payday Loans Payday Loans

Invalidity

Federal Circuit Decision Concerning “Means-Plus-Function” Claiming

When drafting patent claims for a device, it is often desirable to describe the device based on how it works instead of how it is structured.  Describing a device based on how it works is often referred to as “functional claiming.”  Claims that make use of functional claiming are frequently broader in scope than those…

Read More

Active Inducement of Infringement: A Good Faith Belief in Invalidity is Not a Defense

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., (Case No. 13-896, May 26, 2015). A copy of the slip opinion may be found here.  Active Inducement of Infringement: A Good Faith Belief in Invalidity is Not a Defense  U.S. Patent Law recognizes both direct…

Read More

Software Patents Continue to Take a Beating in 2014

This has not been a good year for software patents in the United States. Since the Supreme Court issued its decision in June in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), the Patent Office has been aggressively rejecting software patent applications and the courts have been invalidating issued software patents for lack of…

Read More

Invalidating Patent Claims For Failing to Include Required Aspects of an Invention

In last month’s blog, we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decision in X2Y Attenuators, LLC. V. International Trade Commission, a case which demonstrated how limiting descriptions of an invention in a patent specification can be used to restrict the scope of otherwise facially broad claims.  This month, in ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc.,the Federal Circuit…

Read More

Strategies for Using the Written Description Requirement to Invalidate Broad Patent Claims

In an earlier blog post (http://hanseniplaw.com/what-limitations-are-there-on-the-breadth-of-otherwise-novel-and-non-obvious-patent-claims/) we addressed the question of whether and to what extent U.S. law limits the breadth of patent claims that are otherwise novel and non-obvious. As we explained, both the Written Description and Enablement requirements of U.S. patent law may limit claim scope even if the prior art does not….

Read More

Defending the Patent Case – A Tale of Two Cases

In our experience, many patent cases are actually a tale of two cases: The case based on the patent holder’s interpretation and application of the claims and the case based on the accused infringer’s interpretation and application of the claims.  Both cases involve the same set of patent claims. However, they often involve conflicting ways…

Read More

It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over- Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Strengthens Reexamination Process

On July 2, 2013 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in Fresenius USA v. Baxter International, Inc., Case. No. 2012-1334, 1335 (Fed. Cir. July 2, 2013), which enhances the ability of patent infringement defendants to invalidate patents via the ex parte reexamination process. The ex parte reexamination process allows anyone to ask…

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Rules that Isolated Genes Are Not Eligible for Patent Protection

In a long-awaited decision in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court held on June 13, 2013 that naturally-occurring, isolated genes are not patentable because they do not constitute patentable subject matter under the Patent Statute.  With this decision, another chapter has been written in the…

Read More

Are Business Methods Really Patentable in the United States?

Well, we thought so, but now we are not so sure.  It seems that the much more is required than the business method itself in order to obtain a patent.  The cases suggest that, at a minimum, novel computing features are required.  The Federal Circuit’s most recent pronouncement on the issue seems to change little…

Read More

Pitfalls of Dealing with AIA Transition Applications

In one of our earlier posts we discussed how to determine whether a given patent application or patent is subject to the First Inventor to File Provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA).  In particular, we discussed the complexities involved in determining whether an application filed after March 16, 2013 was subject to the First…

Read More
Page 1 of 3123