Federal Circuit reverses claim construction and noninfringement finding In a claim construction appeal, the Federal Circuit found that the doctrine of claim differentiation, combined with statements made in a petition to make special, led to a broader claim construction than that offered by the district court. Also, there was no unequivocal disclaimer of the broader claim scope during prosecution of either the patent-in-suit […] Continue Reading →
Sixth Circuit affirms copyright infringement award against karaoke disc maker In a decision today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed an award of $806,000 in statutory damages plus attorney fees in a copyright case. The case was brought by a copyright holder against a manufacturer of karaoke discs incorporating the compositions to which the plaintiffs held the copyright. The court upheld the award and finding of willful […] Continue Reading →
Eleventh Circuit: copyright in compilations of used boat listings infringed In a decision yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the finding of copyright infringement of a factual compilation, specifically a compilation of listings of used boats for sale. Most notably, the court held that the proper standard for infringement was the "substantially similar" test, rather than the "virtually identical" test sometimes used for factual compilations (most […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit: less distinctive portions of a mark still considered in likelihood of confusion In a case decided today, the Federal Circuit reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's denial of an opposition to registration of a trademark. Specifically, the court rejected the Board's finding that there was no likelihood of confusion because the Board improperly considered an element present in both marks a "weak component" of the competing […] Continue Reading →
Attorney’s exclusion from USPTO practice based on ties to invention promotion firm affirmed Unsuspecting inventors aren't the only ones hurt by fraudulent invention promotion firms. As a case decided today by the Federal Circuit shows, the attorneys they employ can also be harmed. Of course, in this case, the attorney isn't a very sympathetic figure. He was on the payroll of an invention promotion firm in the 1990s, […] Continue Reading →
200 companies express further concerns over Patent Reform Act of 2007 The hits just keep on coming for the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145). Over the past two weeks, Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit sent two letters criticizing portions of the Act. Before that, a group of Senators noted their concerns with the Act. Just after the Act […] Continue Reading →
Three groups meet with OMB to stop continuation rules from being implemented In an effort to prevent the much–discussed impending rules changing continuation practice and the number of claims from being finalized, there were three meetings held regarding the proposed rules during May and June at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the office that must review and approve all regulations promulgated by federal agencies. It […] Continue Reading →
Post-KSR: Expert testimony enough for infringer to avoid summary judgment of no invalidity? In a nonprecedential ruling yesterday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's grant of summary judgment of no obviousness. The twist was that the only evidence in the record cited by the court as demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact was the testimony of the defendant's expert witness that there would have been a […] Continue Reading →
Chief Judge Michel offers additional thoughts on the Patent Reform Act of 2007 Back when the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908 and S. 1145) was first introduced, Chief Judge Paul Michel of the Federal Circuit wrote a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy and Orrin Hatch (the Senate sponsors of the Patent Reform Act of 2007) discussing the practical implications of certain provisions of the bill on […] Continue Reading →
Means-plus-function claim must recite some structure, “known equipment” not enough In a decision today, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's finding of invalidity of a several claims of a patent for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2. The patent specification did not describe a corresponding structure for the claim limitation "control means" as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, but […] Continue Reading →