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.
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
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
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
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
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
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...
IN RE GEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A specification’s mere assertion of synergistic effect is insufficient to establish unexpected results
A specification’s assertion of a possible synergistic effect, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results and overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the specification’s assertion that “[i]t is...
GLOBAL TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES v. MORGAN (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Physical space constraints are not dispositive of how a patentee is required to mark its commercial article
Physical space constraints are not dispositive of whether a patentee is required to mark its commercial article rather than its packaging. Here, for example, a traffic control system was found to be adequately marked by its packaging rather than its components even...
COMMIL USA, LLC v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (S. Ct. 2015) (P) – Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement
Even a good-faith belief of invalidity is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Here, for example, a major supplier of wireless access points and controllers was found to be subject to liability for providing infringement-inducing products to consumers...
ALLVOICE DEVELOPMENTS US, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – A tangible medium will not be read into claims that fail to recite or reference any such medium
A tangible medium will not be read into claims that fail to recite or reference any such medium. Here, for example, a “universal speech-recognition interface” software application consisting of software instructions was found to not imply the existence of a machine...
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS v. WATSON LABORATORIES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Even an obvious solution does not render an invention obvious if the problem solved was previously unknown
Even an obvious solution does not render an invention obvious if the problem solved was previously unknown. Here, for example, even though the addition of the claimed “antioxidant” would have been an obvious solution for a formulation with known oxidation problems,...