Many, if not most, patent infringement lawsuits involve a patent owner asserting that its claims cover accused products that differ from the specifically described embodiments in the patent at issue. Patent owners typically want their claims construed broadly by the court so that they “read on” or encompass the defendant’s accused products. Depending on the nature…
Read MorePatent Invalidity
In recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to patent computer-related inventions such as those concerning smart phone and web applications or even more specialized computer programs used in industry. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been applying the US Supreme Court’s ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208,…
Read MoreCompanies often want to discuss some of their latest innovations at industry conferences to establish their technical prominence and build their brand. Inventors who are academics often want to describe their work to their peers to develop their reputations in their chosen fields. While such activities are commonplace, they need to be coordinated with patent…
Read MoreWith the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA), the United States went from a first to invent to a first inventor to file system of determining priority of patent rights. However, that was not all that changed with the implementation of the AIA. The AIA includes some significant changes to the on-sale bar which…
Read MoreWhen 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 MoreOn 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 MoreThe claims of a U.S. Patent define the scope of the patent holder’s right to exclude. In its 1996 Markman decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that disputes over the meaning of claim terms are an issue of law to be decided by a judge, not by a jury. A substantial percentage of patent verdicts are appealed…
Read MoreThis 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 MoreOne of the defenses available to an accused infringer is that the asserted patent claims are invalid for indefiniteness. The Patent Statute requires that the claims of a patent “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) (formerly 35 U.S.C. § 112,…
Read MoreIn Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s holding that claims directed to a heart rate monitor were sufficiently definite to avoid invalidation and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit. For a copy of the opinion, click here. The patent claims at issue concerned a heart monitor that includes a…
Read MorePage 1 of 22
Subscribe to our blog
