OIP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Automating routine tasks for speed and accuracy is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible

by Steve Driskill | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Relying on a computer to perform otherwise routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible even when speed and accuracy is advantageous. Here, for example, a method of dynamic price optimization in an e-commerce...

SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL v. TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Amorphous claim terms may be limited to the disclosed embodiments in the absence of further guidance

by Steve Driskill | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Amorphous claim terms, as opposed to those that are clear and well-defined, may be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification when there is no guidance as to how the claim terms can be more broadly applied to a wider range of implementations....

ACME SCALE COMPANY, INC. v. LTS SCALE COMPANY, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation must be consistent with the subspecies disclosed in the specification

by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO must be consistent with the subspecies of the element at issue as disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a table with rollers attached thereto was found to fall outside of the claimed...

KANEKA CORPORATION v. XIAMEN KINGDOMWAY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Lack of word-for-word alignment of specification and claims does not require use of extrinsic evidence

by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

Word-for-word alignment of the specification with the claim language is unnecessary for the appropriate meaning of a claim term to be ascertained from the intrinsic record. Here, for example, although the term “sealed” tank was added to the claims during prosecution...

VIRGINIA INNOVATION SCIENCES. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – All words of a claim term must be given meaning

by Steve Driskill | Jun 9, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

All words of a claim term must be given meaning. Here, for example, the term “display format” referring to a video signal was found to require that the video signal be “ready for use” by a conventional external monitor in order to give meaning to the word “display” as...