Federal Circuit reaffirms anticipatory reference must have all elements as arranged in the claim 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 […] Continue Reading →
BPAI: 102(e) art can be effective prior art as of provisional priority date In a decision recently designated precedential, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences considered the question of whether a reference that is prior art under § 102(e) is prior art as of its provisional priority date or the actual filing date of the reference. In affirming the examiner, the Board determined the reference was prior […] Continue Reading →
ITC cannot enter limited exclusion order against non-parties In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a limited exclusion order issued by the International Trade Commission in the most recent dispute between Qualcomm and Broadcom. The case involved alleged infringement of one of Broadcom's patents relating to chips for wireless communication, specifically directed toward power saving technology. Although Qualcomm was the only […] Continue Reading →
Anticipation no longer the epitome of obviousness? Claims can be anticipated but nonobvious The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court's finding of non-willful infringement for one product, reversed its claim construction and related finding of noninfringement of a second product, and vacated its judgment as a matter of law on the issue of anticipation. The district court, at the charge conference near the end of the jury […] Continue Reading →
General disclosure in prior art not enabling for specific pharmaceutical compound’s use in treatment In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's holding that a prior art patent was not enabling and thus did not anticipate the patent-in-suit. Applying the In re Wands factors, the district court held undue experimentation would be required in order to produce the claimed invention based on the prior art's […] Continue Reading →
When factual inquiries underlying obviousness determination disputed, summary judgment improper 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 […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit: The difference between substantial cure and full cure is not insubstantial In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment of anticipation and obviousness. While the court disagreed with the district court's conclusion that the prior art expressly anticipated the asserted claims as a matter of law, the court did conclude that the prior art inherently disclosed the relevant limitations as a […] Continue Reading →
Irreparable harm to exclusive licensee cannot support injunction; willfulness vacated post-Seagate In a decision Monday, the Federal Circuit addressed a range of issues and ultimately affirmed a district court's denial of injunctive relief and, in light of the intervening Seagate decision, vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration regarding willfulness. The court also affirmed the district court's finding of no invalidity and the infringement of some […] Continue Reading →
BPAI: when prior art teaches away, expectation of success cannot support obviousness rejection In a recent precedential decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the board reversed an Examiner's rejections based on double patenting, anticipation, and obviousness. The Board held the Examiner inappropriately rejected the claims for double patenting because there was insufficient evidence to show the compositions claimed in the prior art possessed the viscosity […] Continue Reading →
Finding of inequitable conduct without considering materiality vacated In a decision on Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's summary judgment of invalidity and noninfringement and subsequent finding of inequitable conduct. The court also vacated the district court's exceptional case finding and the associated award of attorney's fees.The plaintiff was initially awarded partial summary judgment of infringement of six patents. The district […] Continue Reading →