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.
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Measurement techniques for a claimed value need not be specified if understood by one of ordinary skill
There is no requirement for the specification to identify a particular measurement technique for ascertaining a claimed value or range of values as long as such an understanding is within the scope of knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, for...
ALLERGAN, INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A prior art range is not anticipatory when there is material and unpredictable variation across the range
A range disclosed in the prior art does not anticipate a claimed invention falling within that range when it can be shown that there is material and unpredictable variation across the range. Here, for example, a prior art disclosure of a composition comprising...
CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY v. MARVELL TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LTD (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – An element comprising another element having a claimed characteristic is not an independent such element
An element comprising another element having a claimed characteristic is not a separate and independent element having that characteristic. Here, for example, an invocation function invoking a signal-dependent branch metric function in combination with the...
SOCIEDAD ESPANOLA v. BLUE RIDGE X-RAY COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification
Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification. Here, for example, the claimed “two insulated chambers” were found to require no more than mere electrical insulation based on the patent’s overall focus on electrical...
CIRCUIT CHECK INC. v. QXQ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Analogous prior art is not demonstrated by simply being within the knowledge of even lay people
Prior art is not demonstrated to be analogous to the claimed subject matter by simply being within the knowledge of lay people or even within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Here, for example, three disputed references—rock carvings, engraved...
AIRBUS S.A.S. v. FIREPASS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The substantial new question of patentability requirement for reexamination does not extend to new claims
The substantial new question of patentability requirement to institute reexamination proceedings does not extend to claims added after commencement of the reexamination. Here, for example, newly added claims during reexamination were found to be exempt from the...
VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. SAP AMERICA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Commonplace business methods processing business information on a general computer are not patent eligible
Claims reciting a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information, despite being applied on a general purpose computer, are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, claims drafted to include computer hardware limitations, but...
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Key claim limitations broadly encompassing known practices show that claims are directed to an abstract idea
Key claim limitations broadly encompassing known practices may demonstrate that the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, providing customized web page content to a...
THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Products prepared by a supplier for commercial exploitation by the patentee trigger the on-sale bar
Products embodying the invention and prepared by a supplier for commercial exploitation by the patentee trigger the on-sale bar. Here, for example, a batch of pharmaceuticals marked by the supplier with commercial product codes and customer lot numbers and sent to the...
CAMBRIAN SCIENCE CORPORATION v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over broader extrinsic evidence
The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over extrinsic evidence even when that evidence points to a broader understanding of the plain meaning of the term in the art. Here, for example, an “active” waveguide coupler was found to be clearly...