Filewrapper

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In a nonprecedential opinion released today, the Federal Circuit cited the Supreme Court's Monday decision in KSR for the first time.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 →

Willful infringement affirmed; injunction vacated in light of eBay

The Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of willful infringement against a medical device manufacturer, but vacated a permanent injunction entered based on the old injunction standard to be reevaluated by the district court in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay v. MercExchange. The infringer obtained opinions of counsel regarding infringement at two different […]

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 →

Certificate of correction invalid, infringement case continues with original claims

The Federal Circuit yesterday voided a certificate of correction which had been issued changing the scope of a patent's claims. Because the error corrected broadened the claims and was not the type of error that was "immediately apparent and leave no doubt as to what the mistake is," the certificate of correction was inappropriate. As […]

Continue Reading →

Patent Term Extensions: A Leap Frog of Sorts to Set Expiration Date

In a case before the Federal Circuit, the court affirmed the district court's decision that a patent term extension under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 156, may be applied to a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer under 35 U.S.C. § 253. The Federal Circuit found that the language of § 156 is unambiguous […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up