What Do a Resealable Cartridge for Low Pressure Liquid Chromatography and a Soda-Pop Bottle and Cap Have In Common?
| September 23, 2014
Scientific Plastic Products, Inc., v. Biotage AB.
September 10, 2014
Panel: Newman, Moore and Wallach. Opinion by Newman. Dissent by Moore.
Summary
The CAFC affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that all claims of the three disputed patents held by Scientific Plastic Products, Inc. (SPP) would have been obvious.
The CAFC held that the cited references, King and Strassheimer, both of which related to the sealing of a beverage container, were available as prior art against the claimed resealable cartridge for low pressure liquid chromatography (LPLC).
The CAFC held that although the cited reference Yamada failed to explicitly disclose a leakage problem, by “providing for the presence of an O-ring,” Yamada implicitly acknowledged that there is the potential for a leak. Further, the CAFC concluded that the inventors, in the patents in question, identified that the potential for leaks is a “known problem.”
Accordingly, the CAFC found adequate reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to turn to King or Strassheimer to improve the sealing arrangement set forth in Yamada.
CAFC provides guidance on Nautilus indefiniteness standard
| September 18, 2014
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Precedential)
September 10, 2014
Panel: Taranto and Chen. Opinion by Chen.
Summary:
The Supreme Court in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014) rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” test for indefiniteness, holding that the claim language must be capable of interpretation with “reasonable certainty” to avoid indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (now AIA 35 U.S.C. 112(b)).
Citing to Nautilus, but weaving in its own pre-Nautilus case law, a Federal Circuit panel affirms the District Court’s pre-Nautilus holding that claims reciting the expression “in an unobtrusive manner” are invalid for indefiniteness. Notably, the Appeals Court refuses to narrow the expression to an example of the patents’ description, in the absence of an indication in the description that the expression is defined by this example.
EPOS Technologies v. Pegasus Technologies
| September 10, 2014
September 5, 2014
Panel: Hughes and Bryson. Opinion by Hughes.
Discussion:
The Doctrine of Equivalents is applicable in cases where the accused product or process does not literally meet one or more of the limitations of the patent-in-suit. Essentially, a court asks whether the accused product or process possesses a feature(s) which is the equivalent of the limitation(s) not literally met.
Tags: Infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents > the Binary Limitation of the Doctrine
Jurisdiction for Appeal
| September 4, 2014
Arlington Industries, Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.
July 17, 2014
Panel: Chen, Clevenger and Hughes. Opinion by Hughes.
Summary
Arlington Industries, Inc. is the owner of U. S. Patent No. 6,335,488. The ‘488 patent is directed to a method for connecting electrical cables to a junction box using electrical fittings. Arlington and Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. compete in the same industry.
Arlington sued Bridgeport in 2004 for patent infringement of the ‘488 patent. As a result, the two parties entered a settlement agreement in which Bridgeport agreed to be enjoined from making, using, or selling certain products or their “colorable imitations”.
Bridgeport redesigned its connectors in 2005 to have a frustoconical leading edge. The redesigned connectors were sold by Bridgeport as the following models: 38ASP and 38OSP.
In 2012 Arlington sought a contempt order holding that Bridgeport’s redesigned connectors violated the original agreement and the court’s order. The district court held Bridgeport in contempt in 2013, because it found the redesigned connectors were not more than “colorable imitations” of the original connectors. Furthermore, the district court also found that the redesigned connectors of Bridgeport met claim 1 of the ‘488 patent by clear and convincing evidence.
Bridgeport appealed the contempt order of the district court and the determination that the redesigned connectors were not more than “colorable limitations” of Bridgeport’s original connectors.
