A patent specification need enable full scope of the claimed invention

John M. Wang | August 10, 2018

Trustees of Boston University. v. Everlight Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.

July 25, 2018

Before Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Opinion by Prost.

Summary

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Defendants’ motion for JMOL that claim 19 of the asserted patent is invalid for failing to meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification fails to enable full scope of the claimed invention.


Read More/続きを読む

A catalog disclosed at an event not open to the public may still be considered a prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

Kumiko Ide | August 8, 2018

GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding LLC

 July 27, 2018

Before Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes.  Opinion by Reyna.

Summary

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) found a catalog distributed during a trade show targeting dealers as opposed to the public can still be considered a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).  The CAFC stated that the dealers encompassed the relevant audience such that a person ordinarily skilled and interested in the art exercising reasonable diligence should have been aware of the show.  Additionally, there were no restrictions placed on the dissemination of the publication, and the catalog was intended to reach the general public.  The CAFC therefore vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision and remanded for the Board to consider the merits of the petitioner’s obviousness claims.

連邦巡回控訴裁判所(CAFC)は、販売業者のみが参加可能な展示会で配布されたカタログでも、先行技術文献となると判決した。展示会は、一般に向けたものではなかったものの、販売業者は、当該技術関連者(relevant audience)に含まれ、合理的なデリジェンスの下、当業者や当該技術に関心がある者は、その展示会について知り得たであろうと判示した。また、カタログには配布制限が設けられていなかったため、一般に配布されることを意図した物であったと示した。よって、CAFCは、特許審判部の判断を破棄し、カタログが先行技術文献であるとした上で、自明性について検討するように、審判部に本件を差し戻した。


Read More/続きを読む

Post-filing clarification of an ambiguous feature in a pre-filing reference is not sufficient to establish inherent properties of the feature in the earlier publication

Ryan Chirnomas | July 31, 2018

Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions et al. v. Custopharm Inc.

July 16, 2018

Before Moore, Linn and Chen.  Opinion by Chen.

Summary

Custopharm argued that Endo’s patents were invalid due to anticipation or obviousness of three features of a drug and its administration:  the dosage, the content of the vehicle, and the administration schedule.  The arguments regarding the dosage were rejected on the grounds that they relied on a lesser-used industry treatment guideline.  The arguments regarding the vehicle were rejected on the grounds that they relied on an improper inherency position, and that it would not have been obvious to modify the vehicle in view of a reference teaching a similar vehicle in a different context.  Finally, the arguments regarding the administration schedule were rejected on the grounds that they relied upon an unsupported claim construction position, as well as an improper combining of the teachings of two references.


Read More/続きを読む

To read, or not to read an unrecited limitation into a patent claim, that is a question

Yasuhide Ono | July 26, 2018

Blackbird Tech LLC v. ELB Electronics, Inc.

July 16, 2018

Before Prost, Moore and Reyna.  Opinion by Moore. Dissenting opinion by Reyna.

Summary

Finding no suggestion in the specification or prosecution history that the disputed unrecited limitation is important in any way that would merit reading it into the patent claim in dispute, the Federal Circuit vacated district court’s entry of judgment of noninfringement based on the contrary claim construction, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Dissenting opinion expressed totally opposite view on the issue, and affirmed the district court’s judgment.


Read More/続きを読む

Next Page »

Subscribe | 登録

Archives

Categories

词典 / 辞書 / 사전
  • dictionary
  • dictionary
  • 英語から日本語

Double click on any word on the page or type a word:

Powered by dictionarist.com