Method Claim Survives Over MPF Claim’s Demise Under Aristocrat
| November 28, 2012
ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
November 21, 2012
Dyk, Prost, O’Malley. Opinion by Prost.
Summary:
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of having different claim types. ePlus’ jury verdict of infringement of two systems claims was vacated because the Federal Circuit found one means-plus-function element recited therein to lack the requisite corresponding structure being disclosed in the specification, thereby rendering the claims indefinite under 35 USC §112, second paragraph. However, the infringement of a similar method claim reciting the same function as the means-plus-function element was affirmed.
Tags: §112 > §112 sixth paragraph > Aristocrat > claims drafting > indefiniteness > means > means-plus-function
Latest Developments in Calculating Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) from the District Courts
| November 21, 2012
Exelixis, Inc. v. Kappos
Decided November 1, 2012
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
University of Massachusetts v. Kappos
Decided November 9, 2012
U.S. District Court for the District of Colombia
Summary
This week, rather than discuss a CAFC case, we take a look at two important District Court cases dealing with Patent Term Adjustment (PTA). According to Exelixis, under 35 U.S.C. §154(b)(1)(B), the filing of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) has no impact on PTA determinations when filed after the three year examination guarantee has passed. Additionally, according to University of Massachusetts, under 35 U.S.C. §154(b)(1)(A), a fundamentally flawed Office Action will count towards calculating an A delay.
Tags: patent term > Patent Term Adjustment > PTA > RCE > Request for Continued Examination
CAFC discusses interplay between means-plus-function and claim differentiation
| November 19, 2012
Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC.
October 14, 2012
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (“ICON”) owner of USP 6,019,710 (the “’710 patent”) sued Octane Fitness (“Octane”) for infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of claims 1–5, 7, and 9–10 of the ’710 patent by concluding that the “stroke rail” and “means for connecting” limitations were absent in Octane’s Q45 and Q47 machines. On appeal, the CAFC agreed with the District Court’s claim construction and affirmed the District Court’s holding of non-infringement.
Tags: claim differentiation > means > means-plus-function > Tho
Article posted to online periodical qualified as “printed publication” under §102(b) where person skilled in the art could have located it
| November 15, 2012
Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software
Decided November 5, 2012
Panel: Lourie, Reyna, and Wallach. Opinion By: Lourie
Summary
The patent holder alleged that automated voting systems of its competitors infringed U.S. Reissue Patent RE40,449 (“the ‘449 patent”). The district court found that claim 49 of the ‘449 patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C.S. § 103 in view of an article in an online periodical before the patent’s critical date. The district court found that an article in an online periodical qualified as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C.S. § 102(b). CAFC affirmed holding that the article could have been located by someone skilled in the art before the critical date.
特許権者は、競合企業を再発行特許RE40,449号の侵害で訴えた。地裁は特許のクレーム49がオンライン定期刊行物の論文から自明であり、無効であるとした。地裁は、その論文は102条の「刊行物」に該当すると認定した。CAFCは、その論文が出願日の1年前より前に、当業者が見つけることができる状態にあったとして、地裁の判断を維持した。
Tags: §102 > §102(b) > internet > online periodical > printed publication > public accessibility
CAFC does not find means-plus-function in a “height adjustment mechanism”
| November 7, 2012
Flo Heathcare Solutions v. Kappos
October 23, 2012
Panel: Newman, Plager, and Wallach. Opinion by Wallach.
PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
The patentee sued the defendant for infringement. The defendant then requested inter partes reexamination of the patent. The trial judge stayed the infringement action, pending completion of the reexamination. The patent reexamination examiner and the Patent Office Board rejected the claims as being anticipated by the prior art. On appeal, the CAFC disagreed with the PTO Board’s claim construction; but even under the CAFC’s claim construction, it found that the claims were anticipated and therefore affirmed the PTO’s rejection of the claims
