No en banc rehearing for case holding “signals” not patentable subject matter In a precedential order today, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for rehearing en banc in In re Nuijten. In that case, a panel of the court held that claims drawn to a "signal" did not fall into any of the statutory categories of patentable subject matter and were thus unpatentable under § 101. Judge […] Continue Reading →
Claims requiring an “insert” do not cover products with similar structure not “inserted” In a decision Wednesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment of non-infringement. At the outset, the court noted the patent at issue had been before the court multiple times, and the claim terms at issue in this appeal had already been construed by the court in earlier cases.As the district […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit once again affirms that saving patented seeds for replanting is infringement In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit once again affirmed a finding of infringement against a farmer who saved seeds covered by a patent to replant the following year. The plaintiff in this case, Monsanto, has brought similar cases in the past, and they have resulted in similar outcomes.Here, the asserted claims covered the genetic […] Continue Reading →
Infringement of two claims and $74 million in damages affirmed, injunction reinstated In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part a jury verdict of infringement of a patent owned by Tivo relating to its DVR technology. The ruling was based on claim construction, with the court finding that, based on the correct construction of claims directed to the DVR hardware, there was no infringement […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit reiterates that full scope of claim must be enabled to meet enablement requirement In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision holding several claims of two patents invalid for lack of enablement. The district court held that while a portion of the scope of the claims was enabled, the full breadth of the claims were not, and as a result, the claims did […] Continue Reading →
Mandamus inappropriate unless no other way to get relief, even if result is unnecessary trial In a precedential order last week, the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct a district court to vacate its summary judgment order in favor of a patent infringement plaintiff and to enter judgment in favor of the alleged infringer. The district court's order did not completely resolve the […] Continue Reading →
Claim construction excluding disclosed embodiment improper absent disclaimer of some kind In a decision today, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's claim construction and the associated summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court's construction of one of the claim limitations resulted in certain embodiments of the invention disclosed in the figures to be excluded from the scope of the claims. Based on this construction, the […] Continue Reading →
Sufficient structure recited in claim limitation using “means” to prevent application of – 112 – 6 In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's claim construction and the associated summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court held the relevant claim term was a means-plus-function limitation, as it used the word "means," as well as because in an interview summary in the prosecution history, it appeared the USPTO interpreted […] Continue Reading →
No damages for convoyed sales when no functional relationship between patented and unpatented goods In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's decision setting aside the portion of a jury verdict awarding convoyed sales to a patentee, and sustaining the portion of the verdict finding the alleged infringer had not shown invalidity via public use. There was no evidence of a functional relationship between the patented […] Continue Reading →
Claims to “fragile gel” indefinite even though term defined in specification In a second decision Friday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph indefiniteness. The term was defined in the specification, however the district court held that definition was too subjective and unclear, largely because it relied on relative terms. The proper scope was also not discernable from […] Continue Reading →