Pre-KSR obviousness instruction does not result in plain error post-KSR In a decision this week, the Federal Circuit affirmed findings of infringement of two patents by two defendants. The court also reversed an invalidity ruling of one of one claim that had been the subject of reexamination, but remanded the case to the district court for a determination of the obviousness of one claim based […] Continue Reading →
Statement during prosecution not a clear and unmistakable disavowal, no prosecution disclaimer In a decision yesterday, the Federal Circuit partially reversed a district court's summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent directed to closed circuit television systems. In granting summary judgment, the district court held that the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer limited the scope of the claims, finding the inventors characterized the invention narrowly in response to […] Continue Reading →
Triangular opening not equivalent to vertical slit; summary judgment of no infringement affirmed Today the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's determination that the patent claim term "closeable vertical opening" required a slit-like shape that is perpendicular to the pan of the horizon instead of simply an opening with a shape that is taller than it is wide. Further, the court found that an accused product which creates […] Continue Reading →
Infringement finding and denial of permanent injunction in favor of ongoing royalty affirmed In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a jury verdict finding infringement under the doctrine of equivalents of a patent relating to hybrid engines used in motor vehicles. The court also affirmed the district court's denial of a permanent injunction and its award of an ongoing royalty on infringing vehicles, rejecting the argument that […] Continue Reading →
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 →
“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 →
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 →
Claim construction and noninfringement finding affirmed; prosecution history estoppel bars DOE In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of a patent relating to a "gutter guard" designed to keep debris out of gutters. The court found the district court's claim construction correct, as it properly considered dictionary definitions when the specification provided no additional guidance on […] Continue Reading →
Infringement and royalty rate affirmed; dismissal of willful infringement claim reversed In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed-in part a district court's grant of summary judgment of infringement of a patent, finding that the claims were properly held to include measuring devices that either directly or indirectly compare two signals to determine the proper measurement. The court reversed-in part the district court's damages award. The […] Continue Reading →
When point of novelty is a combination of existing elements, it must be a “non-trivial” advance In a case decided yesterday, the Federal Circuit clarified the point-of-novelty test for design patents when the point of novelty is a combination of existing design elements. The court adopted the rule that "to constitute a point of novelty, the combinations must be a non-trivial advance over the prior art." The court likened this analysis […] Continue Reading →