Federal Circuit cites KSR, but not for the new obviousness standard In a nonprecedential opinion released today, the Federal Circuit cited the Supreme Court's Monday decision in KSR for the first time. Unfortunately for inventors and practitioners looking for guidance under the new standard for obviousness laid out in KSR, the reference had nothing to do with the obviousness standard, just that obviousness is a question […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit issues short opinion on claim construction, even shorter mention of claim vitiation The Federal Circuit today issued a brief, five-page opinion regarding claim construction and infringement issues relating to a patent on insulated shipping containers. The court affirmed the lower court's claim construction and, as a result, affirmed the summary judgment of noninfringement. The court also dispensed with the doctrine of equivalents in a single sentence, making […] Continue Reading →
Same terms, same meanings, unless specification indicates otherwise In an appeal by Porta Stor, Inc. of a judgment in favor of PODS, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of patent infringement finding no literal infringement and finding that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The court also reversed […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on District Court’s Claim Construction The Federal Circuit today issued a fairly routine claim construction decision, vacating part of the district court's claim construction and remanding. The Court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny Rule 11 sanctions (applying Ninth Circuit law). More details of the case after the jump. Intamin Ltd. sued Magnetar Technologies Corp. for infringement of […] Continue Reading →
Outdoor outfitters at odds over outerwear, order overturned Competing sporting goods retailers Bass Pro Shops and Cabela's faced off in the Federal Circuit. The parties were involved in an earlier patent infringement suit where Bass Pro Shops sued Cabela's for infringing its patent relating to a vest with a "pivotable seat member." The parties settled that suit, and the court entered an order […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Addresses Claim Differentiation The Federal Circuit further clarified the doctrine of claim differentiation in Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC. Andersen Corp. owns a number of patent relating to composite materials made from a mixture of polymer and wood fiber as well as patents that relate to structural parts made from those composite materials. Fiber Composites manufactures and […] Continue Reading →
No Crying Over Spilled Milk – Held to Claim Construction During Prosecution Nouri Hakim appealed the decisions of the District Court of Western Louisiana granting Cannon Avent Group’s motion for summary judgment that Avent did not infringe one of Hakim’s patents (“the ‘931 patent“) and finding another of Hakim’s patents invalid (“the ‘620 patent“). The patents-in-suit involved the art of non-spill drinking cups and the apparatus in […] Continue Reading →
Don’t change horses in midstream: Patentee held to claim construction position taken at lower court The Federal Circuit ruled today that a patentee could not argue a different claim construction than that argued before the district court. Because of this, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement against the patent holder. Also, the court held that the patent holder did have standing to bring the […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit accepts rare interlocutory claim construction appeal Today the Federal Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal from a district court relating to patent claim construction. Because of the rarity of such a decision by the Federal Circuit, the court felt compelled to explain, in a precedential order, why it was accepting the order, and so members of the bar wouldn’t get their hopes […] Continue Reading →
“Critical” ratio in claim does not get the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit: be careful not to make a claim limitation “critical,” or you may lose the benefit of the doctrine of equivalents for that element. The court found that the claimed weight ratio of two drugs was critical in part because other claims recited a range of ratios, but the claim […] Continue Reading →