Written Description Requirement Met by Original Claims

Claims included in an original patent application are part of the written description, which is why the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,947,882 were invalid for lack of written description support under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556 (Fed. Cir. […]

Continue Reading

CAFC: Claim Reciting “Near” Displays of Data Not Indefinite

A patent claim that recited displaying one set of information “near” another set of information was not thereby rendered indefinite, the Federal Circuit has held in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-1554, 2015-1556 (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2017) (opinion by Judge Moore, joined by Judges Lourie and Chen) (precedential).  This case has […]

Continue Reading

Pleading Requirements for Standard-Based Patent Infringement

To “simply identify a technical standard without further explanation” is not sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint for patent infringement, says a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas.  Stragent, LLC v. BMW of North America, Civil Action Nos.  6:16-cv-446-448-RSW-KNM (E.D. Texas March 3, 2017).  The court recommended dismissal of claims […]

Continue Reading

Mobile Info Retrieval and XML Management Fail Alice Test

In companion cases decided the same day, the Federal Circuit has held invalid, as failing the patent-eligibility requirements of the Alice case and 35 U.S.C. § 101, claims of three patents owned by Intellectual Ventures, two of which are directed to dynamically managing XML (eXtensible Markup Language) documents; the remaining patent being directed to retrieving […]

Continue Reading

Fed. Cir.: Inertial Tracking System Is Patent-Eligible

Reversing a lower court judgment on the pleadings of invalidity, the Federal Circuit held that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159, directed to a motion-tracking system, were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Mayo / Alice test.  Thales Visionix, Inc. v. U.S., 2015-5150 (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2016) (Opinion by Judge Moore, joined […]

Continue Reading

Not All Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Are Broadly Construed

Not all patent prosecution disclaimers are broadly construed; rather, in construing patent claim terms disclaimers must be closely aligned to actual arguments made during prosecution.  On March 3, 2017 the Federal Circuit in Technology Properties Limited, et al v. Huawei, again gave guidance on the issue of prosecution history disclaimer. The patent at issue in […]

Continue Reading

PTAB: Internet Advertising Patent Not Subject to CBM Review

The PTAB has denied Google’s petition for Covered Business Method (CBM) review of an Internet advertising patent, finding that Google failed to show that the patent is directed to “performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” Google Inc. v. KlausTech, Inc., Case CBM2016-00096 […]

Continue Reading

Must Willful Infringement Pleading Allege Egregious Acts?

Much of a plaintiff’s complaint adequately plead patent infringement, but a portion of the complaint alleging willful infringement was dismissed where the plaintiffs “failed to allege any facts suggesting that Defendant’s conduct is ‘egregious . . . beyond typical infringement.’” CG Technology Development, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., 2:16-cv-00859-RCJ-VCF (D. Nev. Feb 17, 2017). The court’s […]

Continue Reading

CAFC Reverses E.D. Texas on Payment Data Patent-Eligibility

The Federal Circuit has reversed Eastern District of Texas Judge Gilstrap’s denial of a post-trial motion for a judgment of patent-ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of three patents directed to accessing and storing payment data. Smartflash, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2016-1059 (Fed. Cir . March 1, 2017).  Chief Judge Prost, writing for a […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes