The threshold to acquiring intervening rights by reexamination requires new or amended claim language
| March 21, 2012
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v Hemcon, Inc. (en banc)
March 15, 2012
Panel: Rader, Newman, Lourie, Bryson, Gajarsa, Linn, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach (en banc)
Opinion for the court by Lourie. Rader, Newman, Bryson and Prost join in full and Linn joins in part II (Intervening Rights)
Opinion for the dissent by Dyk. Gajarsa, Reyna, and Wallach join in full and Linn joins in parts I-II (Claim construction, dismissing HemCon motion for JMOL and/or new trial)
Summary:
Based on statutory interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §307(b), the Majority held that the threshold requirement for acquiring intervening rights is that there must be amended or new claims that did not exist in the original patent but have been found to be patentable during reexamination. The CAFC held that amended means to make formal changes to the actual language of a claim. A claim is not amended merely because the scope of the claim has been altered by arguments presented during reexamination.
Tags: claim construction > damages > en banc > intervening rights > re-examination > reexamination
The Patent Court revisits IPXL doctrine regarding prohibition on hybrid claiming
| February 29, 2012
HTC Corporation v. IPCom GmbH & Co.
January 30, 2012
Panel: Bryson, Linn and O’Malley. Opinion by O’Malley.
Summary
HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. sued IPCom GmbH & Co., KG seeking a declaration that it did not infringe claims of IPCom patents. IPCom counterclaimed alleging infringement. HTC moved for summary judgment of invalidity on the ground that claims 1 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 6,879,830 owned by IPCom were indefinite because (1) they claimed both an apparatus and method steps; and (2) the means-plus-function limitation “arrangement for reactivating,” found in the last paragraph of claims 1 and 18, was indefinite because the patent failed to disclose structure corresponding to the claimed function. On summary judgment, the district court agreed with HTC that claims 1 and 18 were indefinite based on the Federal Circuit’s precedent in IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc prohibiting hybrid claiming of apparatus and method steps in the same claim, but rejected HTC’s argument that the claims were indefinite for failing to disclose the structure corresponding to the means-plus-function limitation. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of invalidity based on hybrid claiming, but did not disturb the district court’s finding regarding the means-plus-function limitation. The Federal Circuit held that the district court misconstrued the asserted claims and that the patent did not describe any improper hybrid claiming of apparatus and method steps in the same claim because the claims, when properly construed, were drawn to only an apparatus and the prohibition on hybrid claiming under IPXL was inapplicable to claims 1 and 18.
Read More/続きを読む
Tags: claim construction > hybrid claiming > indefiniteness > means-plus-function > preamble-within-a-preamble
CAFC reviews and applies the doctrine of claim construction
| February 11, 2012
Thorner v. Sony
February 1, 2012
Panel: Rader, Moore, Aiken. Opinion by Moore.
Summary
The CAFC reverses a determination by the district court that there was no infringement because a limitation was improperly imported into the claim. Because the district court improperly limited the term “attached to said pad” to mean attachment only to an external surface and erred in its construction of the term “flexible”, the CAFC vacated and remanded.
Tags: claim construction > disavowal > lexicographer > ordinary and customary meaning
Joint Inventorship of a novel compound may exist even if co-inventor only developed method of making
| January 25, 2012
Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed
January 23, 2012
Panel: Linn, Prost and Reyna. Opinion by Linn.
Summary
The CAFC held that a putative inventor who envisioned the structure of a novel chemical compound and contributed to the method of making that compound is a joint inventor of a claim covering that compound. One may be a joint inventor even if co-inventor’s contribution to conception is merely a method of making the claimed product and said co-inventor does not synthesize the claimed compound.
Tags: claim construction > damages > exceptional case > inventorship > joint inventorship
More on Typhoon: Knowledge in the Art as a Factor in Determining Sufficiency of Corresponding Algorithm
| January 4, 2012
Since the CAFC was relatively quiet last week due to the holidays, this week we revisit Typhoon, which we discussed in our post last week. In the second half of this case, the CAFC continued their review of the district court’s claim interpretation. The CAFC reviewed the MPF claim term “means for cross-referencing responses to said inquiries with possible responses from one of said libraries.” The CAFC chose to emphasize a 1985 case, Shatterproof Glass, in indicating that the amount of detail required in the specification is related to the existing knowledge in the field of endeavor.
Means-Plus-Function Claims – “Algorithm” can be expressed in any understandable terms including in prose
| December 28, 2011
Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc. et al.
CAFC, November 4, 2011
Panel: Rader, Newman, Prost. Opinion by Newman
Summary
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas held the patents in suit invalid and not infringed. On appeal, the CAFC affirmed the district court’s rulings concerning the claim terms “memory for storing,” “processor for executing,” “operating in conjunction,” and “keyboardless.” However, CAFC reversed the district court’s ruling that the claim term “means for cross-referencing” is indefinite for failing to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112 ¶ 2. CAFC disagreed with the district court and held that the term “means for cross-referencing” is supported by the “structure, materials, or acts” in the specification.
地裁は、MPFのクレームにおいて、機能に対応する構造が明細書に記載されていないと判示し、特許法第112条2項に基づき、クレーム用語は不明瞭であり、クレームは無効であると判断した。CAFCは地裁に同意せず、本件では、明細書に十分な構造の開示があったと判示した。まず、コンピューターにより実施するために必要な構造（アルゴリズム（algorithm））が明細書に開示されているか否かを判断するにあたって、アルゴリズムは、数式、文章、フローチャート等、当業者が理解できるのであれば、どのような方法で開示されていても良いと示した。CAFCは、本件において必要なアルゴリズムは、文章により明細書に十分に開示されていたため、MPFの記載は不明瞭でないと判示した。
How Big a Role does the Specification Play in Construction of Patent Claims?
| July 14, 2011
先週金曜日に下された、CAFCのRetractable Technologies v. Becton, Dickinson判決は、明細書中で曖昧な記載がされている場合、裁判所は、クレームを狭く解釈する恐れがあるため、特許権者にとって危険であることを示す。裁判所がクレームを狭く解釈する可能性をできるだけ低くするための明細書記載についてのレッスンは以下の3つである。
(1) 明細書の「発明の背景（Background of the Invention）」のセクションにおいて、先行技術は発明の特定の特徴を開示していないことについてコメントすることを控える。裁判所は、そのコメントについて、クレーム発明は、その特徴を必要としていると解釈し、クレームをそれに応じて限定する可能性がある。
(2) 明細書の「課題を解決するための手段（Summary of the Invention）」のセクションにおいて、クレーム中に記載されていない発明の特徴を説明することを控える。上記と同じように、裁判所は、そのコメントについて、クレーム発明は、その特徴を必要としていると解釈し、クレームをそれに応じて限定する可能性がある。
(3) 主クレームの用語ができるだけ広く解釈されるように、クレーム用語を狭く定義するいくつかの従属クレームを記載する
IN RE SHAHRAM MOSTAFAZADEH AND JOSEPH O. SMITH , 2010-1260, Decided: May 3, 2011, Before DYK, FRIEDMAN, and PROST, Circuit Judges
| May 19, 2011
SUMMARY
本件判決は、米国特許商標庁のアピール・インターフェアレンス審判部の決定に対するアピールに関するものである。審判部は、再発行特許出願のクレームは元の特許出願のプロセキューションで放棄した主題を取り戻したものであるとして、再発行特許出願に対するクレーム11-23の審査官の拒絶を支持していた。そして、本件CAFCは、その審判部の決定を支持したのである。
再発行出願では、クレーム主題の取戻し禁止ルールというのがある。すなわち、あるクレーム限定事項について、元の特許出願のプロセキューションで狭くしていた場合には、再発行特許出願で、それを拡大することができない。このルールは、再発行出願が特許発行から2年以内、すなわち再発行出願によるクレーム範囲の拡大が一般的に認められうる時期に提出された再発行出願に対しても適用されるという点に留意すべきである。
