Posts Tagged: "CAFC"

A “black letter” rule of patent law is that infringement requires proof that the alleged infringing device includes all elements or limitations recited in the claim.  Known alternatively as the “All Elements Rule” (AER) or “All Limitations Rule” (ALR), it behooves a patentee to make sure that each and every claim element or limitation is clearly shown to be present…

So the fact that a method or process may be performed on a computer is not enough. I dare say that strict adherence to the Federal Circuit test in Bilski would compel a similar ruling that a method or process is not patentable even if it must be performed on a computer. Thus, the take home lesson moving forward must be that it is not enough to recite a computer, or even articulate an invention that necessarily must and only can be performed on a computer. At least for now these types of inventions must be described with a level of particularity that explains the innovation on a system level.

Earlier today in Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. Infousa, Inc. the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the district court properly ruled the relevant patent claims of US Patent No. 6,631,400 were invalid as a result of being obvious. In so doing, Judge Linn writing for the panel (consisting additional of Judges Prost and Dyk)…

In probably the most significant case since In re Bilski, the en banc Federal Circuit in Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly is about to ponder two questions:  (1) is there a separate and distinct “written description” requirement in the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112?; and (2) if there is, what does it mean?  My answer to the first…

I am just getting back from a week in San Francisco, California teaching the PLI Patent Bar Review Course at PLI’s California Headquarters in downtown San Francisco.  I am back in the office after having taken the red-eye, with a stop over in Long Beach, California before the cross country trek to DC.  As has become so common, while I…

Earlier today the Chief Judge Paul Michel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an Order declaring the pending appeal of Dr. Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline moot due to the fact that USPTO Director David Kappos has withdrawn the rules. The Federal Circuit per Judge Michel, however, denied the motion of the USPTO and GlaxoSmithKline to…

Unlike Gene I did not really plan very well. I did not have credentials and am not (yet) a member of the Court. So, I was in line with the public. A patent centric public, but the public none-the-less. My fellow line standers included: Law students headed to taking the patent bar; a Finnegan partner (made me feel a little…

If you are going to read only one of the briefs in this case I would strongly recommend the Medtronic amicus brief, which was filed in support of neither party. Much of the Medtronic brief is devoted to explaining what the company does, some of the key medical innovations created by the company, why these innovations have helped improve the quality of health care for real people, and what technologies they will no longer be able to seek patent protection for, which will all but certainly lead to less medical innovation, which is hardly good for society.

Federal funding, typically in the form of research grants, is often used to support university research.  The Bayh-Dole Act also allows universities to retain title to invention rights in such research (referred to as “subject inventions”).  See 35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(2).  What the Federal Circuit has struggled with recently is what does “retain title” mean under Bayh-Dole, and especially where…

Determining what compounds are obvious under the doctrine of “structural similarity” can be a daunting challenge, even for those of us with a chemistry or pharmaceutical background.  Add the doctrine of “inequitable conduct” to the “structural similarity” brew, and the plot truly thickens.  But there’s enough schizophrenia about the structural differences between one prior art compound called Schmutz X and…

At the beginning of August 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case Nos. 2006-1491, 2007-1180 (Fed. Cir. 2009), a decision that changed the playing field with respect to charges of inequitable conduct in patent litigation. Essentially, the Federal Circuit decided that since inequitable…

Legend has it that Zeus punished Prometheus by binding him to a rock while having his regenerating liver eaten daily by a great eagle. After the case of Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, we in the patent world may now be subjected to similar torture in determining when medical/drug dosage calibration methods qualify as statutory subject matter under…

The Federal Circuit, in Amgen Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, has made it clear that you had better characterize an application as a “divisional” if you want to the benefit of the “safe harbor” provided by 35 U.S.C § 121. And if you don’t, you’re going face obviousness-type double patenting problems.  The Federal Circuit in Amgen also went on…

By now most probably know that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted Microsoft a stay of the injunction against Word pending its expedited patent appeal.  The Federal Circuit granted the stay of the permanent injunction on September 3, 2009, but I had a very difficult time finding the ruling.  Being ever suspicious of the popular…

Each year, the Federal Circuit Yearbook provides a concise, comprehensive review of every patent decision published by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit during the preceding year. The 2009 Federal Circuit Yearbook is now available, and includes all the information you need to catch up with what the Federal Circuit has been doing over the previous year. …