Decision to accept later filing date due to omitted items not correctable via reissue When you make a conscious choice between alternatives during prosecution, the Federal Circuit says you’re stuck with it. That’s the message from In re Serenkin, where the court held that an inventor could not, through reissue, claim priority to his provisional filing. Serenkin had filed a PCT application just before the one-year anniversary of his […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Addresses Claim Differentiation The Federal Circuit further clarified the doctrine of claim differentiation in Anderson Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC. Andersen Corp. owns a number of patent relating to composite materials made from a mixture of polymer and wood fiber as well as patents that relate to structural parts made from those composite materials. Fiber Composites manufactures and […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit again deals with standing In yet another case, the Federal Circuit has dealt with whether a party asserting a patent infringement claim had title to the patent, and thus standing to bring the claim against the defendant. Here, once the standing issue was raised at the district court, the Plaintiff opted to fix the chain of title, voluntarily dismiss […] Continue Reading →
Back to the Future: trade dress found functional in 1985 still functional in 2007 The Federal Circuit once again rejected Bose Corporation's application to register a speaker design as a trademark. The court had earlier affirmed a finding of functionality by the USPTO, and because there were no changed circumstances since that decision, the court once again affirmed the same finding based on the doctrine of res judicata (claim […] Continue Reading →
Comparison of Commercial Products not the vehicle to analyze equivalence In a second appearance before the Federal Circuit, AquaTex again appealed a decision of the District Court that Techniche Solutions’ Cooling Apparel did not infringe their U.S. Patent No. 6,371,977 for a protective multi-layered liquid retaining composition. The Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the lower court’s finding of no literal infringement while remanding the case […] Continue Reading →
Today’s lesson from the Federal Circuit (that you should already know): Don’t miss deadlines In a case decided today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s dismissal of a party’s cancellation claim. The party seeking cancellation sought to do so by proving uncontrolled licensing of the trademark, but failed to file a notice of reliance with regard to the relevant testimony on the issue before the deadline. The TTAB denied […] Continue Reading →
Voluntary dismissal prevents award of attorney fees under § 285 In a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its case under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) before an answer is served, the defendant is not a “prevailing party.” As a result, attorney fees under § 285 could not be awarded by the district court. More details of the case after the jump. RFR […] Continue Reading →
No Crying Over Spilled Milk – Held to Claim Construction During Prosecution Nouri Hakim appealed the decisions of the District Court of Western Louisiana granting Cannon Avent Group’s motion for summary judgment that Avent did not infringe one of Hakim’s patents (“the ‘931 patent“) and finding another of Hakim’s patents invalid (“the ‘620 patent“). The patents-in-suit involved the art of non-spill drinking cups and the apparatus in […] Continue Reading →
Government contractor entitled to patent infringement immunity The Federal Circuit ruled today that a contractor working for the government was entitled to immunity from a patent infringement suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). The contractor was hired to clean up various sites contaminated by hazardous waste, and the terms of the contract required the contractor to use a particular method to perform […] Continue Reading →
Don’t change horses in midstream: Patentee held to claim construction position taken at lower court The Federal Circuit ruled today that a patentee could not argue a different claim construction than that argued before the district court. Because of this, the court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement against the patent holder. Also, the court held that the patent holder did have standing to bring the […] Continue Reading →