Developments up to second-filed application relevant to show no double patenting The Federal Circuit has clarified the relevant timeframe for purposes of determining whether two claimed inventions are patentably distinct or would result in impermissible double patenting. The court held "the relevant time frame for determining whether a product and process are 'patentably distinct' should be at the filing date of the secondary application." Here, the […] Continue Reading →
If there are no sources of proof in the Eastern District of Texas, expect to be transferred After the Fifth Circuit's Volkswagen and the Federal Circuit's TS Tech decisions, potential patent plaintiffs should be getting the message: Don't file in the Eastern District of Texas unless there are actually some sources of proof there. The Federal Circuit has again granted mandamus ordering the district court to transfer another case out of the […] Continue Reading →
Are patent holding companies subject to different DJ jurisdiction standards than others? According to the Federal Circuit, the answer to this question appears to be "yes." The court reversed a district court's dismissal of a declaratory judgment action against a patent holding company (or non-practicing entity (NPE), sometimes pejoratively referred to as a patent troll). The DJ action was predicated on three letters, the first from the […] Continue Reading →
Common sense held sufficient to invalidate claims as obvious on summary judgment If anyone needed further proof that patents are more easily held obvious after KSR, look no further. The Federal Circuit held that a patent directed to a method of email marketing with improved efficiency was obvious based on the "common sense" of one in the art. The claimed method had four steps, the fourth of […] Continue Reading →
Attendance at single trade show to display infringing product sufficient for personal jurisdiciton In a case of first impression for the Federal Circuit, the court addressed the issue of how to apply Federal Rule 4(k)(2) (the Federal Court's long-arm statute) to a defendant. The court, in agreement with several other circuits, that a Rule 4(k)(2) analysis is appropriate when (1) the plaintiff's claim arises under federal law, (2) […] Continue Reading →
En banc Federal Circuit to address potential patent misuse issues in license practices The Federal Circuit has agreed to hear en banc an interesting issue with regard to the potential for patent misuse in licensing. The case is Princo Corp. v. ITC. At issue is the patent pool related to the technology used for CD-R and CD-RW discs. The alleged infringer, Princo, admitted infringement before the ITC, but […] Continue Reading →
Dependent claim can’t be obvious when indepdendent claim is not; verdict vacated as inconsistent In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part a district court's decision regarding obviousness, holding the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness. The court vacated the district court's entry of judgment of an inconsistent jury verdict of obviousness: the jury held a dependent claim obvious but […] Continue Reading →
Claim and continuation rules dead: thousands of practitioners breathe easier In a Federal Register notice today, the USPTO has officially withdrawn the claim and continuation rule changes from the Code of Federal Regulations. This is consistent with a press release from Thursday announcing the rules were no longer going to be pursued. The summary of the notice: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) […] Continue Reading →
Manuscript filed with copyright office not necessarily publicly available as of filing date In a decision Tuesday, the Federal Circuit held the USPTO had not provided sufficient evidence that an inventor's manuscript was publicly accessible, and therefore available as prior art under § 102(b), before the critical date of the application. As a result, the court reversed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. At issue was the […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit to consider whether a separate written description requirement exists in section 112 In an en banc order Friday, the Federal Circuit announced it will rehear Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. en banc to consider whether there is a written description requirement in § 112 separate and apart from the enablement requirement. Specifically, the questions presented are: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, contains […] Continue Reading →