IMMERSION CORPORATION v. HTC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Filing a continuation application on the same day as its parent application issues does not defeat priority

by | Jun 21, 2016 | [sub] priority, Formal Requirements

Filing a continuation application on the same day as its parent application issues is sufficient to satisfy the “before the patenting” requirement for claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Here, for example, the fact that the patent being asserted was filed on the...

ENOCEAN GMBH v. FACE INTERNATIONAL CORP (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Means-plus-function interpretation of and priority disclosure requirements for a “receiver”

by | Jan 31, 2014 | [sub] invocation, [sub] priority, Formal Requirements, Means Plus Function

A “receiver” is reasonably well understood in the art as a name for a structure which performs the recited function. “The term ‘receiver’ (i.e., [in] the absence of the term means) presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art” to...

MEDTRONIC COREVALVE, LLC v. EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Priority statement requirements for specific reference to parent applications

by | Jan 22, 2014 | [sub] priority, Formal Requirements

Take care to update the priority statement in each successive child application to properly reflect the entire chain of priority from the perspective of the new application. The “specific reference” requirement for claiming priority mandates “each [intermediate]...