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 →
“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 →
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 →
Summary judgment of noninfringement reversed: challenge to reliability of expert testimony waived In a decision Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. The court held the district court improperly made a factual determination regarding the reliability of an expert's test used to establish infringement. Based on statements made during summary judgment briefing and argument, the defendants could not argue the […] Continue Reading →
Claims to a “method for mandatory arbitration resolution” not drawn to statutory subject matter In the second of two decisions regarding the scope of patentable subject matter on Thursday, the Federal Circuit found claims in a patent application directed toward a "method for mandatory arbitration resolution" as not directed toward statutory subject matter under § 101. The USPTO had not addressed the statutory subject matter issue, rather the Federal […] Continue Reading →
Declaratory judgment jurisdiction exists, sufficient corroboration of prior public use to invalidate In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit upheld a district court's decision that a case or controversy existed providing subject matter jurisdiction and that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on a public use more than a year before the patent's priority date. A licensee's decision to stop royalty payments […] Continue Reading →
Injunction against patentee’s assertions of infringement reversed, bad faith standard not met In a decision last week, the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction after finding that the district court abused its discretion. The district court enjoined a patent owner from any future correspondence with any existing or potential customers of an alleged infringer (started by former employees of the patent owner), essentially stopping the patentee from […] Continue Reading →
Claims to “signal” with no reference to physical structure not patentable subject matter In the first of two decisions today regarding the scope of statutory subject matter, the Federal Circuit held that claims directed toward a "signal" were not statutory subject matter under § 101. Earlier, the USPTO allowed claims directed toward a method of embedding data in a signal; the rejected claims were the reverse: they were […] Continue Reading →