Blog

These articles are for informational purposes, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. These articles are only the opinion of the authors and are not attributable to Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C., or the firm’s clients.

REDLINE DETECTION, LLC v. STAR ENVIROTECH, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Timeliness and relevancy alone are not sufficient to ensure entry of supplemental information for IPR

Timeliness and relevancy alone are not sufficient to ensure entry under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) of supplemental information for IPR proceedings where the information reasonably could have been submitted with the IPR petition itself. Here, for example, the later...

VEHICLE INTELLIGENCE v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The use of special-purpose hardware without implementation details is not sufficient for patent eligibility

The mere use of special-purpose hardware without providing implementation details is not sufficient to transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Here, for example, although the court acknowledged that execution of a vehicle operator...

SOUTH ALABAMA MEDICAL SCIENCE v. GNOSIS S.P.A. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – No nexus is required between the claimed invention and a product ultimately produced under license

The patentee need not necessarily establish an independent nexus between the products produced under a license agreement and the claimed invention for licensing activity to be a relevant secondary factor in the obviousness inquiry. Here, for example, the fact that the...

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Disparaged combinations in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the claim scope

Any combination that is thoroughly disparaged in the specification will be generally found to be disclaimed from the ultimate claim scope. Here, for example, the fact that the specification was rife with remarks that disparage more complex mobile devices incorporating...

PROLITEC, INC. v. SCENTAIR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Proposed amendments during IPR must establish patentability over prior art from original prosecution

A patentee’s burden on a motion to amend its claims during IPR includes the burden to show patentability over prior art from the patent’s original prosecution history. Here, for example, the patentee’s motion to amend was denied because it did not address the...

CARDSOFT, LLC v. VERIFONE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Claim terms used in same way as conventional systems will be interpreted to require all associated standard features

A claim term used in exactly the same way as in conventional systems will be interpreted to require all the standard features thereof. Here, for example, the claimed “virtual machine” was interpreted as requiring the typical limitation of conventional “virtual...

Topics