Harmless Error at the Federal Circuit A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of how much deference should be given to a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences when the Board makes an error in ascertaining the teachings of references. The appeal concerns the status of U.S. Patent Application number […] Continue Reading →
More on Crocs at the CAFC Another decision regarding a number of patents relating to foam based footware, this time held by Crocs, Inc. ("Crocs") has been handed down from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC"). In this appeal from the U.S. International Trade Commission ("USITC"), the court addressed obviousness of a utility patent and claim construction of […] Continue Reading →
UNIX Copyrights Owned by SCO, not Novell In the late 1960's, AT&T developed a computer operating system known as UNIX. This operating system is now widely used in both servers and workstations, and is generally characterized by a less polished (and in many ways more powerful) user interface than typical consumer products (such as Microsoft's Windows or Apple's Mac OS). The product […] Continue Reading →
Ninth Circuit Spanks Spoiled Brats They may be trashy role models for impressionable young girls, but Bratz dolls are not copyright infringers. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed a lower court's finding that the maker of the popular Bratz dolls did not infringe the copyright or trade dress rights in a line of T-shirts called Spoiled Brats. […] Continue Reading →
Clogging up the Federal Circuit On December 17, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed in International Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp. whether the "ordinary observer" test from Egyptian Goddess likewise applies to anticipation of design patents. In Egyptian Goddess, the CAFC dropped the "point of novelty" test for design patent infringement and adopted the "ordinary […] Continue Reading →
Specticles and Specifications In April of last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit added another layer to the ongoing case between Revolution Eyewear, Inc. ("Revolution") and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. ("Aspex"). The decision primarily concerned the circumstances surrounding the reissue of Aspex's initial patent: whether the reissue was supported by 35 U.S.C. § 112; whether the […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit to consider en banc whether new evidence may be introduced in a section 145 action In an order yesterday, the Federal Circuit has agreed to consider the scope of evidence to be considered in an action filed under 35 U.S.C. § 145 to obtain review of a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The case is Hyatt v. Kappos. Specifically, the court ordered briefing on the following […] Continue Reading →
Developments up to second-filed application relevant to show no double patenting The Federal Circuit has clarified the relevant timeframe for purposes of determining whether two claimed inventions are patentably distinct or would result in impermissible double patenting. The court held "the relevant time frame for determining whether a product and process are 'patentably distinct' should be at the filing date of the secondary application." Here, the […] Continue Reading →