Filewrapper

Design Patents and Indefiniteness

By Luke T. Mohrhauser

            In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit addressed indefiniteness and enablement issues under 35 U.S.C. ยง 112 as they apply to design patent applications. In In re: Ron Maatita, the court held that two-dimensional drawings in design patents can meet the definiteness and enablement requirements under ยง 112, and that the determination includes, at […]

Continue Reading →

PTAB Opinion Provides Reminder that Indefiniteness Rejections Must Establish a Prima Facie Case

By Jonathan L. Kennedy

In a recent USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) opinion, the PTAB reversed an Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection as the it failed to establish a prima facie case of indefiniteness. InEx Parte Kimura, Appeal No. 17-1293 (PTAB Jan. 25, 2018), the claims were rejected for reciting, “normal pumping operation.” The rejection stated the term was […]

Continue Reading →

Post-Grant Reviews under the America Invents Act

The America Invents Act implemented the Post-grant Review (PGR) process as a new means of challenging existing patents. PGR differs from Inter Partes Review (IPR) in that PGR allows for a wider array of invalidity challenges. One example of a new challenge allowed under PGR is the ability to challenge the claims as being indefinite. […]

Continue Reading →

Teva v. Sandoz Revisited

Teva v. Sandoz Revisited On June 18, 2015, a Federal Circuit panel reaffirmed that the key claim of the patent at issue inTeva v. Sandoz, was invalid as indefinite. The procedural posture and technical background leading up to this decision is discussed in aprior blog post.  The Federal Circuit ultimately concluded that they are still […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court Issues Indefiniteness and Inducement Decisions

The Supreme Court this week issued its decisions in two much anticipated IP cases. The Court's decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. concludes that at least one underlying act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. In Nautilus v. BioSig the Court instituted a new standard for […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court Defines Scope of Definiteness Required in Patent Claims

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. defining the standard for definiteness necessary to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, second paragraph. The decision unanimously rejected the "insolubly ambiguous" standard previously employed by the Federal Circuit to determine whether patent claims meet the statutory requirement […]

Continue Reading →

“Insolubly Ambiguous” Standard not Applicable at the USPTO

InIn re Packard the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO need not follow the insolubly ambiguous standard in order to satisfy a prima facie rejection for indefiniteness. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, […]

Continue Reading →

2014 Supreme Court Cases Relating to Intellectual Property

On January 10, 2014 the Supreme Court agreed to review a variety of intellectual property cases in the upcoming session, including two patent cases, a copyright case, and a trademark case (including Lanham Act claim). A brief overview of these cases is provided and more detail will be available once decisions are entered by the […]

Continue Reading →

Bring on the New Year – What is in Store for IP in 2014?

Happy New Year to all of our FilewrapperÒ followers! We hope 2013 was a productive year and wish you the best in 2014. As the New Year quickly approaches we would like to share with you a few predictions for 2014 for you to look forward to and for which to prepare! · Increased opportunities […]

Continue Reading →

Intrinsic Evidence Can Provide Adequate Support to Overcome Indefiniteness

In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York finding a patent invalid for indefiniteness, relying on intrinsic evidence. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (“Biosig”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 (“the ’753 patent”). The ’753 patent is directed […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

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

Sign Up