Filewrapper®

Category: Reexamination


Critical Versus Optional, but Desireable Claim Elements
August 18, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
On August 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc. In 2006, the Petitioner ScriptPro, LLC sued Innovation Associates, Inc. for infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 ("the '601 patent"). The '601 patent describes a "collating unit" that uses sensors to automatically dispense and organiz.......
Read More


USPTO Patent Invalidation Precludes Judicial Equitable Remedies and Sanctions
July 31, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued a decision inePlus, Inc. v. Lawson. ePlus sued Lawson asserting infringement of two patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 6,023,683 ("the '683 patent") and 6,505,172 ("the '172 patent"). At trial, the district court held two of ePlus's asserted system claims and three of ePlus's asserted method claims not invalid, and the j.......
Read More


Federal Circuit Holds Common Sense Cannot Establish Presence of an Element
June 13, 2014
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit's recent decision in K/S HIMPP v. Hear-Wear Technologies presents an interesting development in the law of obviousness. In affirming a finding of non-obviousness by the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"), the Federal Circuit held that while common sense or basic knowledge may provide a reason to combine elements present in the prior art, it cannot establish th.......
Read More


Bring on the New Year - What is in Store for IP in 2014?
December 31, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
Happy New Year to all of our FilewrapperÒ followers! We hope 2013 was a productive year and wish you the best in 2014. As the New Year quickly approaches we would like to share with you a few predictions for 2014 for you to look forward to and for which to prepare! · Increased opportunities for quasi-litigation under AIA. Various new mechanisms are available to challenge patents under the Am.......
Read More


New and Useful - July 8, 2013
July 08, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
· The Federal Circuit inUltramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC held that the district court erred in holding that the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545 ('545) is not a "process" within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded this case stating the claims were not abstract and were patent eligible. The '545 patent claims a meth.......
Read More


Supreme Court Rejects Patent Exhaustion Defense for Patented Bean Replanting
May 13, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
The Supreme Court has handed down its much anticipated decision in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., holding that the defense of patent exhaustion does not apply to the practice of planting and harvesting patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. The case centers on the Roundup Ready gene, which confers resistance to glyphosate herbicides such as Roundup. Monsanto owns U.S. .......
Read More


Federal Circuit Addresses Obviousness Rationales and Counterarguments
January 17, 2013
Post by Blog Staff
Recently, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in CW Zumbiel v. Kappos. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (“BPAI”) finding that multiple claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,715,639 (“the ’639 patent”) were obvious and therefore invalid. The ’639 patent is directed to a “carton with an improved dispenser.” The carton is for.......
Read More


Grant of stay while preliminary injunction motion pending abuse of discretion
January 05, 2009
Post by Blog Staff
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found that a district court's grant of a stay pending inter partes reexamination without considering the patentee's pending motion for a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion. The Federal Circuit held the grant of the stay effectively denied the preliminary injunction motion, thereby making the stay order appealable. The court then held the district c.......
Read More


Federal Circuit invalidates Patent on Nobel-Prize winning invention after 50 years of prosecution
December 16, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In an appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's rejection of the claims based upon obviousness-type double patenting over previously-granted related patents. The technical aspects of the invention are complex, but are overshadowed by the procedural aspects of this reexamination. The majority and dissenting opinions seem to discuss two different cases........
Read More


Federal Circuit declines to consider constitutionality of BPAI judge appointments, affirms rejection
November 06, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit decided a case involving both obviousness and the Appointments Clause relating to allegedly unconstitutional appointment of members of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The court determined that appellants failed to timely raise the issue of the constitutionality of the Appointments Clause by not presenting it to the Board, and therefore waived the issue.......
Read More


Prior court decision of no invalidity based on prior art reference doesn't bar reexamination
September 17, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit recently construed the scope of the revised reexamination statute, 35 U.S.C. § 303, specifically what is required for a "substantial new question of patentability." In this case, the relevant reference was cited during the initial examination of the application that led to the patent under reexamination, but as a supporting reference. The reference was also the subject of inva.......
Read More


Federal Circuit affirms USPTO's interpretation of inter partes reexamination statute
August 22, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that the USPTO's interpretation of the inter partes reexamination procedure was correct, and therefore that all patent applications (other than reissue applications) filed after November 29, 1999 are eligible for inter partes reexamination, even if priority is claimed to an application filed before that date. While the distric.......
Read More


Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR
January 10, 2008
Post by Blog Staff
In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of two patents by two defendants. The court also reversed an invalidity ruling of one of one claim that had been the subject of reexamination, but remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the obviousness of one claim based on a revised claim construction and for a determination of damages.While the case went to t.......
Read More


USPTO not bound by district court claim construction on reexamination; obviousness affirmed
August 22, 2007
Post by Blog Staff
The Federal Circuit today addressed claim construction and obviousness in the context of a reexamination appeal. The patentee argued that the USPTO was bound, in reexamination, to apply the claim construction given the patents by a district court when the patents were in litigation before reexamination. The court found that because the USPTO was not a party to that litigation, issue preclusion could not apply,.......
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.