Specific application of an abstract idea may be patent eligible
| June 26, 2013
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC.
June 21, 2013
Panel: Rader, Lourie and O’Malley. Opinion by Rader. Concurrence by Lourie
Summary
Ultramercial, Inc. sued Hulu, LLC for infringement of U.S. Patent 7,346,545 (the ‘545 patent) directed to a method of monetizing and distributing copyrighted products over the Internet. The district court dismissed the patent suit by holding that the patent claims an abstract idea; therefore, it is not a process under 35 U.S.C. §101. In an earlier decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding and remanded. The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the earlier decision by the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit again holds that the patent does not claim an abstract idea because the claims are not drawn to a mathematical algorithm or a series of purely mental steps because the claims require, among other things, a particular method for collecting revenue from the distribution of media products over the Internet by way of controlled interaction with a consumer over an Internet website. Therefore, the Federal Circuit again reversed the district court’s holding and remanded for further proceeding.
Tags: §101 > abstract idea > mathematical formula > mental process > patent eligibility > patent eligible subject matter > process
How to claim triangle relationships among three elements to win broader claim construction
| June 19, 2013
Douglas Dynamics LLC v. Buyers Products Co.
May 21, 2013
Panel: Rader, Newman, and Mayer. Opinion by Rader. Dissent by Mayer.
Summary
Connection between two elements is relatively clear and does not cast heavy doubt. Adding another element allows possible variations in connections among three elements and requires deeper thoughts of a claim drafter. In this case, the CAFC reversed the district court’s narrower claim interpretation of “connected to” in light of its ordinary meaning and the usage in the specification. Judge Mayer dissented from the majority’s claim construction. Contexts of a claim are source for supporting specific claim interpretation. A functional limitation supported a favorable interpretation for patentee and saved a problematic structural limitation from a pitfall.
特許クレームは、3つの部品(フレーム)相互の接続関係を“connected to”という用語で定義した。クレームは、最初のフレームが3番目のフレームに直接接続されている態様だけに限定されるべきか、それとも2番目のフレームを介して間接的に接続されている態様も権利範囲に含まれるのかが争点となった。クレーム解釈の技法として、クレーム用語の通常の意味、明細書の実施形態の参酌に加えて、地裁およびCAFCともクレームの文脈に基づいて自身のクレーム解釈を正当化した。しかしながら、両者が認定した文脈には違いが存在する。地裁は構造的な限定に注目して解釈をし、CAFCは機能的な限定に鑑みて理由付けを行った。
Tags: claim construction > claim context > context > superfluous
Limitations describing how an apparatus is made can structurally limit the apparatus
| June 12, 2013
Regents of University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp.
June 3, 2013
Panel: Rader, Wallach, Dyk. Opinion by Dyk.
Summary
Regents of University of Minnesota (“University”) sued AGA Medical for infringement of U.S. Patents 6,077,281 and 6,077,291 directed to medical devices called septal occluders. A claim at issue recites two disks having central membranes, the two disks being “affixed” to each other at the central membranes “to define a conjoint disk.” The accused product was a molded one-piece device. In the district court, the claim was construed as to require that the disks, before being affixed, exist separately as individual disks that are then attached to each other. Since the accused device was a single molded device and was not constructed from two separate disks, the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement. The CAFC affirmed this construction and the summary judgment of non-infringement.
Another claim at issue was found to be anticipated. The University attempted to use prosecution disclaimer to narrow the claim and avoid anticipation. However, the court rejected the prosecution disclaimer because the prosecution disclaimer was from a parent application and applied to “materially” different claim language.
Confusion dogging best mode requirement in its waning days: Is intentional concealment required?
| June 5, 2013
Ateliers de la Haute-Garonne, and F2C2 Systems SAS v. Broetje Automation USA Inc. and Broetje Automation GMBH
May 21, 2013
Panel: Newman, Prost, and Reyna. Opinion by Newman. Dissent by Prost.
Summary:
An embodiment with three grooves is disclosed in the specification of the patents-in-suit as a preferred embodiment of an apparatus for dispensing rivets. In his deposition one of the two inventors stated that an odd number of grooves was required to prevent a rivet from rotating on itself in the device as a result of the rivet stem going inside one of the grooves. The district court found that the specification did not “state that an odd number of grooves is better than an even number”, and concluded that the patents “effectively conceal the best mode.” Summary judgment is granted. On appeal the CAFC finds no violation of the best mode requirement. Questions: Is the three-groove embodiment the best mode, or is the belief that an odd number of grooves is required the best mode? Has the best mode been concealed, and does the concealment have to be intentional for the patent to be invalidated?
Read More/続きを読む
