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 →
USPTO rescinds partial waiver of restriction requirements for nucleotide inventions In a news release yesterday, the USPTO has rescinded its partial waiver of the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.141 and 1.475 et seq. Under the former policy, a “reasonable number” of nucleotide inventions, typically up to ten, would be considered in a single application without a restriction requirement or issues regarding unity of invention. […] Continue Reading →
USPTO to institute pilot project to allow public comments on pending applications The Washington Post today provided more detail about a pilot program previously mentioned in this post. Under the program, the USPTO would post pending patent applications that have become accessible to the public (such as after they have been published). Members of the public would then be able to comment on the applications, and even […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Director Jon Dudas talks patent reform Over at ZDnet there is very good coverage of a recent speech about patent reform by USPTO director Jon Dudas. Mr. Dudas spoke at the Tech Policy Summit on the issue of whether the patent system was hurting innovation. Mr. Dudas stated that the biggest problem leading to bad quality patents is the obviousness requirement, […] 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 →
Roundup of media coverage of Microsoft v. AT&T oral arguments, more to come for Microsoft? Now that the oral arguments before the Supreme Court have passed, various media outlets have had the opportunity to weigh in on the arguments and offer their predictions as to how the case will come out. A sampling of this media coverage is below: Seattle Post Intelligencer USA Today Boston Globe Houston Chronicle Forbes Los […] Continue Reading →
Interesting tidbits from today’s oral argument in “Microsoft v. AT&T” A few interesting exchanges took place in today’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in the Microsoft v. AT&T case. Click to read these portions of the arguments.The first related to jurisdiction. The parties had entered into a “high/low” settlement before the arguments, which essentially means that they have settled the case, but depending on […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments regarding scope of US patent law This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., a case about the potential extraterritorial reach of United States patent law. Specifically, the case deals with § 271(f)(1), which states that: (f)(1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or […] Continue Reading →
Patent reform legislation: is this year the year? Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the possibility of reform of the U.S. Patent system. Given that the title of the hearing was “American Innovation at Risk: The Case for Patent Reform,” it’s easy to surmise that the general theme of the hearing was that reform is needed. Dennis Crouch at Patently-O […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit accepts rare interlocutory claim construction appeal Today the Federal Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal from a district court relating to patent claim construction. Because of the rarity of such a decision by the Federal Circuit, the court felt compelled to explain, in a precedential order, why it was accepting the order, and so members of the bar wouldn’t get their hopes […] Continue Reading →