Denial of interim patent term extension affirmed In a decision rereleased as precedential yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to compel the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant a request for an interim patent term extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156(e)(2).Somerset Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Somerset") is the owner of a […] Continue Reading →
First Circuit: Reconstruction of work does not meet deposit requirement for copyright registration Tuesday, the First Circuit issued a decision regarding the Copyright Act's requirement of submission of a "copy" of an original work along with the registration of the work in order for a plaintiff to bring suit in federal court. The court held, as an issue of first impression in the circuit, that the copy submitted […] Continue Reading →
Claims to using product made via another claim are dependent claims, noninfringement affirmed In a battle between two agricultural heavyweights, Monsanto and Syngenta, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that Syngenta did not infringe two Monsanto patents and that a third was invalid for lack of enablement. The patents relate to tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate. The court affirmed the district court's claim construction, noting that […] Continue Reading →
Agreement to assign to employer requires separate assignment; dismissal for lack of standing vacated In a decision released late Friday, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court's decision that a plaintiff did not have standing to sue for patent infringement. At issue was whether a joint inventor of the patent had assigned his interest in the patent to a third party, thereby making the third party a […] Continue Reading →
The Federal Circuit turns 25 Today marks the 25th anniversary of the existence of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 2, 1982, President Reagan signed the Federal Courts Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 97-164, 96 Stat. 25, which created the Federal Circuit. The Act took effect on October 1, 1982, which marked the date […] Continue Reading →
“Comprised of” means the same as “comprising,” judgment of noninfringement affirmed Today, the Federal Circuit addressed how to interpret the phrase "comprised of" in a patent claim. In holding that the phrase should be construed in the same open-ended way the term "comprising" is traditionally construed, the court disagreed with the district court's finding that the phrase was closed-ended and excluded the presence of all elements […] Continue Reading →
Finding of infringement of two patents affirmed, one reversed, damages award vacated In a highly anticipated recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of infringement against Vonage with respect to two Verizon patents, holding that the district court did not err in its construction of the disputed claim terms and that the claims were not obvious. With respect to a third patent, the Federal Circuit held […] Continue Reading →
Injunction against trademark “disparagement” reversed; no such claim under the Lanham Act In a decision yesterday, the Ninth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction preventing an individual from "making any comments that could be construed as to disparage" a possible trademark and logo. The court concluded that the injunction was improperly granted since the plaintiff failed to present a likelihood of success on the merits by failing to […] Continue Reading →
USPTO’s claim construction not reasonable, anticipation rejection reversed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed the rejection of claims in a pending application as anticipated. The relevant limitation was "flexible polyurethane foam reaction mixture." The examiner and BPAI interpreted this to encompass any mixture that ultimately produces a flexible polyurethane foam. The alleged anticipatory reference initial produced a rigid foam, but then […] Continue Reading →
Sixth Circuit: No likelihood of confusion between competing wines using same geographic term In a decision last week, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that use of the mark "Chateau de Leelanau Vineyard and Winery" did not create a likelihood of confusion among consumers with the plaintiff's "Leelanau Cellars" federally-registered mark. "Leelanau" in both marks is a reference to a peninsula in Michigan where the wine […] Continue Reading →