Proper successor shielded from patent infringement claim In General Mills, Inc. v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court holding that General Mills's claim for patent infringement against Kraft Foods was barred by a covenant not to sue that General Mills granted to Farley Candy Company, Kraft's predecessor in interest. In affirming the district court's […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit: Board can’t use its own expertise as evidentiary substitute in interferences The Federal Circuit today held that during inter partes proceedings, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) cannot, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), rely on its own expertise when making factual findings if there is no evidence of record supporting its conclusion. The court did not opine whether this limitation extended to […] Continue Reading →
Inventors’ appreciation of invention intones interference’s inversion On appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the Federal Circuit today reversed a priority determination, finding that the junior party had shown conception and reduction to practice before the senior party's filing date. As a result, the case was remanded to determine whether the senior party could prove earlier priority. More […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit post-KSR: Combination of familiar elements obvious when yielding predictable results In this matter before the Federal Circuit, the Court affirmed the district court's grant of judgment that Fisher-Price's PowerTouch device did not infringe claim 25 of LeapFrog's U.S. Patent 5,813,861 ("the '861 patent") and that claim 25 of the '861 patent was invalid as obvious. Notably, the court cited the Supreme Court's KSR decision for […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit cites KSR, but not for the new obviousness standard In a nonprecedential opinion released today, the Federal Circuit cited the Supreme Court's Monday decision in KSR for the first time.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 panel splits on inherency case In a second appeal involving patents relating to the original "Purple Pill®," a panel of the Federal Circuit split on whether an earlier patent application by a Korean company inherently anticipated one of AstraZeneca's patents covering the popular heartburn medication Prilosec® (omeprazole). The panel majority held that a process disclosed in a Korean patent application […] 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 →
The Truth Be Told, “Lawyers” are Generic The truth is finally out — "Lawyers" are generic. Really, "lawyers.com" is generic. In a case before the Federal Circuit, the Court affirmed the holding of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) which denied registration of the mark LAWYERS.COM for providing an online interactive database featuring information exchange in the fields of law, legal […] Continue Reading →