CAFC Reverses District Court for Improper Finding of Indefiniteness

In BASF v. Johnson Matthey, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reversed and remanded a district court’s finding of indefiniteness. The patent in question was directed to a catalyst system and the district court found the claim to be indefinite because the claims, as written, fail to sufficiently identify the material compositions…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

Claims Defining System with Particular Capabilities or Function Did Not Render Patent Claim Indefinite

In Mastermine v. Microsoft, the Federal Circuit overturned a district court decision, which found patent claim indefiniteness. Specifically, the patent at issue claimed a system and methods “that allow a user to easily mine and report data maintained by a customer relationship management (CRM) application” by automatically creating an electronic worksheet that included a pivot table. The district court held that the claims were improperly directed to both an apparatus and a method, and as such were indefinite. The Federal Circuit disagreed…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Holds that IPR Petitioner Bears the Burden of All Propositions of Unpatentability

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rendered its en banc decision in Aqua Products v. Matal. In IPR proceedings, the PTO has imposed certain requirements on Patent Owners who try to amend claims during the IPR proceeding. Specifically, the PTO has required Patent Owners to show that the claims (as amended) would be patentable. This has proven to be a very difficult burden to satisfy, and as a result, the PTO has generally refused Patent Owners’ attempts to amend claims. Indeed, in the Aqua Products case attached, in the IPR proceeding, the PTO has denied Aqua Products motion to amend its claims…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Vacates PTAB Finding of Obviousness – Failed to Properly Support Assertion of “Routine Optimization”

In In re Stepan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) delivered a precedential opinion, in which the CAFC vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The underlying decision by the PTAB upheld an Examiner’s determination of obviousness, which was based on a conclusory assertion of “routine optimization.” The CAFC noted that an obviousness determination requires finding both: “that a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art … and that the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so”…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Reverses PTAB for Failing to Expressly Define Claim Term

In Homeland Housewares v. Whirlpool, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rendered an opinion, in which CAFC reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the US Patent & Trademark Office, because of its failure to construe the claimed term of “predetermined settling speed.” The CAFC noted: “In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language may be readily apparent and claim construction will involve little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” However, “[c]laims must also be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Explains What the PTO Must Find to Hold a Patent Obvious

In Outdry v. GEOX, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rendered a decision, in which it upheld a finding of obviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent at issue was directed to a method for waterproofing leather, and the invention specifically defined either sewing or gluing a semi-permeable membrane to an interior surface of the leather. The claims called for “directly pressing” the membrane to the leather, but the specification did not provide any meaningful discussion on what this “directly pressing” entailed…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Finds Claimed Phrase “virtually free from interference” to be Definite under 35 U.S.C. 112

In One-E-Way v. ITC, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the International Trade Commission (ITC), which invalidated patents on the basis that the phrase “virtually free from interference” rendered the claims indefinite. In the decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the ITC decision on the basis that a person of ordinary skill in the art, viewing the claim term “virtually free from interference” in light of the specification and prosecution history, would be informed of the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

Supreme Court Rules that Lexmark’s Patent Rights in Toner Cartridges were “Exhausted”

In Impression Prods. v. Lexmark, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an opinion, in which the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The Court found that Lexmark had exhausted its patent rights in its patented toner cartridges. The issue in question is particularly relevant to patented products that have recyclable, multiple uses.
There were actually two exhaustion issues resolved in the opinion. The first dealt with domestic (i.e., within the U.S.) resales of such cartridges, and the second was whether the legitimate sale (by Lexmark) of a patent product outside the U.S. exhausted its patent rights in the U.S. for that product…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

CAFC Affirms Invalidation of Patent Claims because of Inadequate Written Description

In Rivera v. ITC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the ITC, which invalidated patent claims based on the specification’s failure to provide an adequate written description of the claimed invention. The patent at issue was generally directed to a coffee brewing system, and more specifically to an adapter assembly for providing compatibility between a single serving beverage brewer and brewing pods…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.

Two Recent Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

First, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The technical holding of the opinion is that the general venue statute (which has been amended to provide venue in any judicial district in which personal jurisdiction exists) did not alter the patent venue statute. Second, the CAFC rendered the decision in Rovalma v. Bohler-Edelstahl. This is another in a series of recent decisions by the CAFC which has reversed a finding by the Patent Office (regarding the invalidity or unpatentability of a patent claim), where the Patent Office has not provided sufficient fact-finding to support its conclusion…

If you want to receive the full article please subscribe to case updates above.