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
Tags: claim construction > means > means-plus-function > reexamination
Designer’s Connection with Paris Insufficient to Overcome a Section 2(e)(3) Refusal
| October 24, 2012
In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC
October 4, 2012
Panel: Rader, Linn, O’Malley. Opinion by O’Malley
Summary
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), refusing to register the mark JPK PARIS 75 and design on the grounds that it is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive under Section 2(e)(3) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3). While the CAFC does not endorse a rule that the goods need to be manufactured in the named place to originate there, there must be some other direct connection between the goods and the place identified in the mark. In this case, the CAFC found there is no evidence of a current connection between the goods and Paris.
商標審判は、商標「JPK PARIS 75」は、「産地について誤信を生じさせる商標（primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive）」であると認定し、CAFCは、これを支持した。 CAFCは、商品がその産地にて製造される必要があるとは示さなかったものの、商品とその産地には直接的な関係が必要であると示した。本件では、商品とパリに直接的な関係が存在するという証拠はなかった
Tags: geographical indication > geographically misdescriptive > Trademark
Apple is bit at CAFC: The Court reversed and remanded a preliminary injunction obtained at the District Court against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus Smartphone
| October 17, 2012
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics, Ltd. et al.
Decided: October 11, 2012
Panel: Prost, Moore, and Reyna. Opinion by Prost.
Summary
The CAFC reversed the District Court’s finding that there was irreparable harm to Apple by allowing sales of the Galaxy Nexus. The CAFC held that there was an insufficient causal nexus between the claimed invention and the sales of the product. The Court also addressed Apple’s likelihood of success to interject claim construction.
Tags: claim construction > galaxy nexus > injunction > irreparable harm > likelihood of success > nexus > preliminary injunction > smartphone
Saved by Therasense: Deliberate decision to withhold references not found where art was cited in foreign counterpart and domestic co-pending applications
| October 10, 2012
1st Media v. Electronic Arts et al.
Decided September 13, 2012
Panel: Rader, Linn and Wallach. Opinion by Rader.
Summary
This case demonstrates how Therasense has changed the inequitable conduct analysis. Although the individual inventor and sole practitioner knew of references which were probably material, and did not submit the references, this is now insufficient to demonstrate inequitable conduct. It must additionally be shown that there was a specific decision to withhold the documents from the USPTO, in order to show an intent to deceive. This can be demonstrated, for example, by selective disclosure. However, no such evidence was presented, and thus an intent to deceive, the first part of the inequitable conduct analysis, was not found.
Tags: IDS > inequitable conduct > information disclosure statement > intent to deceive > Supplemental Examination
Like prior art patents, potentially anticipatory non-patent printed publications are presumed to be enabling
| October 5, 2012
In re Antor Media Corporation
July 27, 2012
Panel: Rader, Lourie and Bryson. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary
Antor Media Corp. appeals from the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejecting on reexamination the claims of its patent as anticipated and obvious over four prior art references. The prior art references include three printed publications and one U.S. patent. The Board found that two of the printed publications anticipated the claims in Antor’s patent. Here, Antor argues that since the printed publications are not enabling, they could not have anticipated the claims. Antor further argues that unlike prior art patents, prior art printed publications are not presumptively enabling. The principal issue on appeal is therefore whether the presumption that prior art patents are enabling can be logically extended to printed publications. The Federal Circuit answers that it can, holding that a prior art printed publication cited by an examiner is presumptively enabling barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant or patentee.
Tags: anticipation > enablement > non-enablement > non-patent literature > prior art
Belkin v. Kappos: PTO’s Determination of the threshold issue in Reexamination is not appealable
| October 3, 2012
Belkin International, Inc. et al. v. David Kappos, Director, USPTO, et al.
Decided: October 2, 2012
Panel: Rader, Lourie and Wallach. Opinion by Lourie.
Summary:
This decision results from a pre-AIA appeal in an inter partes reexamination proceeding. The issue in this appeal is whether a prior determination that an argument based on a given reference does not raise a substantial new question of patentability (“SNQ”) as to a claim when such an SNQ was raised with respect to certain other prior art is appealable. The CAFC held that this determination is not appealable and that the proper course of action is to timely petition the Director to review the determination.
Tags: reexamination > SNQ > substantial new question of patentability
Burden of persuasion in the post-MedImmune world
| September 27, 2012
Medtronic v. Boston Scientific Corporation, Guidant Corporation and Mirowski Family Ventures
September 18, 2012
Panel: Lourie, Linn, Prost. Opinion by Linn.
Summary
This decision discusses who carries the burden of persuasion in the post-MedImmune world. This question arises as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007). In MedImmune, the Supreme Court found declaratory judgment jurisdiction even though the declaratory judgment plaintiff-licensee continued to make royalty payments pursuant to a license. The Court reasoned that a licensee should not be forced to cease royalty payments and risk infringement liability before the licensee can challenge the extent of coverage of the license.
The district court entered judgment of non-infringement in favor of Medtronic and judgment of validity and enforceability in favor of Mirowski Family Ventures (MFV). MFV appeals the judgment of non-infringement and Medtronic cross appeals the district court’s claim construction. The CAFC vacates the district court ruling and remands.
Tags: burden of persuasion > claim construction > Declaratory judgment > license
Summary Judgment improperly granted in trade secret misappropriation case
| September 7, 2012
Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corp. and FLIR Systems, Inc.
August 1, 2012
Panel: Linn, Dyk and O’Malley. Opinion by Linn.
Summary
Raytheon sues Indigo for misappropriation of trade secrets in selling an infrared imaging camera to a general contractor on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program. The district court grants Indigo’s motion for summary judgment that the statute of limitations (3 years) had lapsed. Former employees of Raytheon started up Indigo to produce infrared imaging cameras. The district court impermissibly drew inferences against the non-moving party (Raytheon) in granting the summary judgment motion. Further, the summary judgment motion should not have been granted because Texas and California law state that the discovery rule for the statute of limitations is a question of fact and not of law.
Tags: statute of limitations > trade secret > trade secret misappropriation
Federal Circuit Judges Spar over Post-FDA-Approval Application of Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
| September 4, 2012
Momenta Pharma v. Amphastar Pharma
August 3, 2012
Panel: Rader, Dyk and Moore. Opinion by Moore.
Summary:
Momenta sued Amphastar for infringement of Momenta’s drug testing method. Amphastar argued that its use of Momenta’s patented method for testing Amphastar’s commercial batches is covered by the exception to infringement for activities related to FDA regulatory review under the “safe harbor” provision of section 271(e)(1). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against Amphastar, holding that the “safe harbor” is limited to pre-FDA approval activities. The Federal Circuit vacates the injunction. Amphastar’s activities took place after FDA marketing approval of Amphastar’s product, but the plain language of the statutory “safe harbor” covers all uses of a patented invention that are “reasonably related” to submission of information under FDA regulatory review. Since Amphastar’s manufacturing batch testing was mandated by FDA for commercialization, and not “routine” information gathered “voluntarily,” Amphastar’s use of Momenta’s patented method is exempted by the “safe harbor.”
Tags: 271(e) > FDA > FDA regulatory review > hatch-waxman > infringement > safe harbor
