TOMITA TECHNOLOGIES USA, LLC v. NINTENDO CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Black box element requires articulated and distinct structure for means-plus-function interpretation

by | Dec 8, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function

Although a means-plus-function element may be illustrated in black box form, the corresponding structure must be clearly articulated in the specification—the black box itself is not sufficient—and clearly distinguished from other embodiments in order to provide...

DDR HOLDINGS, LLC v. HOTELS.COM, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claims that overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks are patent-eligible

by | Dec 5, 2014 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

In contrast to claims that are directed to “nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice on the Internet or using a conventional computer,” claims that are “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically...

TYCO HEALTHCARE GRP. LP v. ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Secret section 102(g) prior art may still serve as prior art under section 103

by | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] invention by another, Prior Art

Absent the application of a statutory exception (e.g. § 103(c)), secret § 102(g) prior art may serve as prior art under § 103 for the purposes of establishing obviousness. Here, for example, the accused infringer’s prototype, which was conceived before the patented...

ERICSSON, INC. v. D-LINK SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Manufacturer can directly infringe apparatus claim if its system is “reasonably capable” of satisfying claim

by | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] direct, Infringement

A manufacturer can directly infringe an apparatus claim if its system or product is “reasonably capable” of satisfying the claim elements even though it may also be capable of non-infringing modes of operation. Here, for example, a Wi-Fi compliant device was found to...

TRISTRATA, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – A borrowed term of analogy rather than a true term of art does not have a plain and ordinary meaning

by | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation

A borrowed term of analogy rather than a true term of art is not sufficient to establish a plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the particular field to which the application pertains. Here, for example, a “seal” described parenthetically for use in the field...