Filewrapper®

Category: Means-plus-function


Means-Plus-Function Claims and Written Description for Priority
February 10, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
InEnOcean GMBH v. Face International Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a final order of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) with respect to EnOcean’s U.S. Patent Application No. 10/304,121. The Federal Circuit held (1) the term “receiver” was recited with sufficient structure as to not inv.......
Read More


New and Useful - April 10, 2013
April 10, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
· InIn re Hubbell the Federal Circuit confirmed the rejection of all of the pending claims in an application, filed with Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall as named inventors. The invention disclosed in the application was based on research performed while all of the named inventors were at California Institute of Technology (CalTech). As a result, the application is assig.......
Read More


Federal Circuit affirms importance of secondary indicia of non-obviousness
April 05, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit has recently decided the case ofPower Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. Power Integrations, Inc. (Power) sued Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. (Fairchild) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of Power’s four patents covering chargers for mobile phones. In a bifurcated trial, the claims of the patents .......
Read More


New and Useful - April 5, 2013
April 05, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
· In Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. the Federal Circuit clarified several points relating to claim construction, determinations of non-obviousness, and calculation of damages. The court confirmed that claiming a “circuit” in conjunction with a sufficiently definite structure for performing the identified function is adequate to bar means-plus-fu.......
Read More


New and Useful - February 21, 2013
February 21, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Read More


Use of "mechanism" in claim without more may result in means-plus-function interpretation
December 18, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Monday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's claim construction and related judgment of noninfringement. The decision focused on the issue of claim construction in means plus function claims. The critical limitation used the term "mechanism" without any additional structural elements, and as a result the district court construed it to be a means-plus-function claim. T.......
Read More


Federal Circuit reaffirms anticipatory reference must have all elements as arranged in the claim
October 31, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of indefiniteness but reversed the district court's holding of anticipation of other claims. The district court held the means-plus-function limitations did not have corresponding structure disclosed in the specification, rendering them indefinite, and that the combination of two examples in a prior art publication anticipated t.......
Read More


Remittitur without new trial requires legal error, not error as a matter of law
October 29, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's reduction of the jury's damages award, remanding the case for a new trial on damages, and affirmed the jury's verdict of willful infringement and the district court's award of attorney fees under § 285. The district court held there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to support the jury's damages award, so it .......
Read More


When factual inquiries underlying obviousness determination disputed, summary judgment improper
September 25, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment of no anticipation, no invalidity for failure to comply with the written description requirement, and infringement, but reversed the district court's summary judgment of no invalidity based on obviousness. In an unusual procedural move, the parties stipulated that for the issues on which both parties moved for summary j.......
Read More


Two district courts, one correct claim construction; $103 million damage award vacated
April 25, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict of willful infringement and a total award of over $100 million based on a modified claim construction. The court also reversed the finding that one asserted claim was not anticipated, and remanded the case for a redetermination of infringement and whether the remaining claims were valid.The court considered two competing constructions of the same .......
Read More


Computer-implemented means-plus-function claim invalid when no algorithm disclosed in specification
March 31, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a final judgment of invalidity of all claims of a patent indefinite. The claims had several means-plus-function clauses that were computer-implemented, however no algorithms for implementing the claimed functions were disclosed in the specification. The district court held the claims invalid because there was no "structure" (i.e., algorithm) disclosed.......
Read More


Sufficient structure recited in claim limitation using "means" to prevent application of - 112 - 6
January 30, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's claim construction and the associated summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court held the relevant claim term was a means-plus-function limitation, as it used the word "means," as well as because in an interview summary in the prosecution history, it appeared the USPTO interpreted the term as a means-plus-functio.......
Read More


Statement during prosecution not a clear and unmistakable disavowal, no prosecution disclaimer
November 29, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent directed to closed circuit television systems. In granting summary judgment, the district court held that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer limited the scope of the claims, finding the inventors characterized the invention narrowly in response to an office action.The Federal.......
Read More


Means-plus-function claim must recite some structure, "known equipment" not enough
June 18, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of invalidity of a several claims of a patent for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The patent specification did not describe a corresponding structure for the claim limitation "control means" as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but instead stated that "known equipment" could be used.......
Read More


View all Filewrapper® Posts

Search Posts

Purpose

The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

Disclaimer

McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole.

Connect with MVS

Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

  I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.