|
|
|
07.2016
|
www.mckoolsmith.com
| View in web browser
|
 |
Court Affirmed Construction of “Fractionating” and Finding of Non-Infringement
David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC v. Shell Oil Company
The claims-at-issue are directed to a process for producing purified benzene requiring a final step of fractionalizing to form a purified benzene product comprising at least about 80% benzene. Read More>>
|
Court Affirms Construction of “Mountable” and Affirms Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement
Profectus Technology LLC v. Dell, Inc.
Profectus’ patent claims at issue were directed to “mountable” digital picture frames for displaying digital images. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Construes Term “Communications Path” to be Limited to Wired Communications and Thus Excludes Wireless Communications
Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Innovative Wireless Solutions, LLC
This appeal involves the construction of the claim term “communications path.” The district
court construed it to be limited to wired communications thereby excluding wireless communications. Read More>>
|
Court Dismissed Appeal of Examiner’s Final Rejection in a Reexamination for Lack of Jurisdiction, Because the Appeal was Premature
In re: Arunachalam
In this Order, the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal from a non-final adjudication from the PTAB. Arunachalam appealed to the Federal Circuit from the examiner’s non-final rejection in a reexamination proceeding. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Court Holds Patent Claims Directed to Taking, Transmitting, and Organizing Digital Images to Be Patent Ineligible Under Section 101
In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation
The claims at issue were directed to a method and system for taking, transmitting, and organizing digital images by assigning classification information to the images taken using a mobile device and storing the images on a server while “taking into consideration the
classification information.” Read More>>
|
Court Properly Resorted to the Specification for Guidance When Claim Language Itself Was Unable to Resolve the Parties’ Claim Construction Dispute
Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.
This case involved two issues: (1) the correctness of the district court’s construction of the term “essentially midway” referring the location of a recess along a taper; and (2) the district court’s refusal to permit Howmedica to assert the doctrine of equivalents after receiving the claim construction. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Federal Circuit Clarifies the “Abstract Idea” Inquiry to Inquire Whether the Claims are Directed to a Specific Improvement to the Way Computers Operate
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
The Federal Circuit clarified the inquiry for identifying abstract ideas. Patent claims (even if software related) that “are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” rather than to “economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity,” are not directed to an “abstract idea.” Read More>>
|
Finding of Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents Affirmed Where the Infringer Admitted to the FDA that its Substitute Ingredient Performed the Same Function as the Claimed Ingredient
Intendis GMBH v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA
In this ANDA case involving claims directed to a hydrogel for topical treatment, the district court found the claims to be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents and that Glenmark had not proven the claims to obvious. Glenmark appealed both grounds. Read More>>
|
 |
 |
Plaintiff Failed to Receive All Substantial Rights to the Patent and Therefore Lacked Standing to Sue
Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America
The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Diamond Coating lacked standing, as it had not received all of the necessary patent rights in the transaction with the patent owner, and it had not joined the patent owner as a plaintiff in the action. Read More>>
|
Pre-Filing Offer For Sale Invalidated Patent Claim on Dietary Supplement
Merck & Cie v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
In an ANDA case, Watson contended that claim 4 of the Merck’s patent was invalid under the on sale bar of Section 102(b). Read More>>
|
 |
 |
PTAB Did Not Abuse its Discretion By Rejecting Petitioner’s Reply Brief In Its Entirety for Including New Arguments And Incorporating Arguments by Reference
Intelligent Bio-Systems, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd.
Intelligent Bio-Systems filed an Inter Partes Review proceeding in the PTO seeking to invalidate Illumina’s patent as being obvious under Section 103. Illumina’s patent was
directed to a method of labeling nucleotides in a DNA strand. Read More>>
|
PTAB Was Under no Obligation to Address Non-Obviousness Issues That the Patentee Did not Address in its Motion to Amend
In re: Aqua Products, Inc.
Aqua Products appealed the PTAB’s denial of its motion to amend its claims in the IPR proceeding on two grounds: (1) that the PTAB misinterpreted the Patent Office’s regulations by... Read More>>
|
 |
|
