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.
VIRNETX, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Summary section is given particular weight for claim interpretation
Particular weight is given to the Summary of the Invention section of the specification with regard to claim interpretation because it is presumed that the statements therein describe the invention as a whole, rather than only preferred embodiments. For example, the...
FACEBOOK, INC. v. PRAGMATUS AV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Descriptions of example features of claim language is not sufficient for lexicography or disavowal
In order to limit the otherwise plain meaning of the language of the claims, statements in the specification must particularly describe the language at issue. Merely describing related or exemplary features (e.g., “location information” in contrast to the claimed...
SCIENTIFIC PLASTIC PRODUCTS v. BIOTAGE AB (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Art is analogous when fields represent close-knit class of inventions for solving technical problem
Different fields of invention may nevertheless provide analogous art when the particular technical problem with which the inventor is involved (as opposed to commercial problems concerning the end-product) is such that the two fields represent a relatively close-knit...
INTERVAL LICENSING LLC v. AOL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim limitations dependent on personal preference and individual circumstances are likely indefinite
Although terms of degree are not inherently indefinite, claim limitations that are subject to personal preference and individual circumstances probably are indefinite. For example, displaying peripheral images “in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user”...
EPOS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. PEGASUS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Use of terms such as “preferably” or “typically” can distinguish examples from the greater invention
Use of terms in the specification that clearly set apart specialized examples from the greater invention as a whole—even when at least non-exclusively conveying partiality, such as the terms “preferably” or “typically” here—can be used to avoid an inference that all...
BUYSAFE, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claims that are squarely about creating a “contractual relationship” are directed to an abstract idea
Claims that are squarely about creating a “contractual relationship” (e.g., a “transaction performance guaranty”) fall under the purview of abstract ideas for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The “contractual relationship”...
ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BRIDGEPORT FITTINGS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Tangential acknowledgment of a given issue by the board is not sufficient to avoid waiver
Simply prompting the Board during an appeal to acknowledge a given issue in responding to arguments for a fundamentally separate issue is not sufficient to preserve the first issue for further appellate proceedings. In order to make sure that the issue is preserved,...
PLANET BINGO, LLC v. VKGS LLC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Computerized risk or security management for organized human activity is likely an abstract idea
Claims related to a kind of “organizing human activity” (e.g., minimizing security risks during bingo ticket purchases) that can be “carried out in existing computers long in use” and/or “done mentally” are likely directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of...
FERRING B.V. v. WATSON LABORATORIES INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Obviousness requires a showing why skilled artisan would have chosen specific limitations claimed
In establishing obviousness under 35 U.S.C § 103, it is not sufficient to merely assert in a conclusory manner that certain limitations “would have been obvious or could have been predicted” while failing to address why one of ordinary skill in the art would have...
FERRING B.V. v. APOTEX INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately”
The term “about” should be given its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately” unless the patentee clearly redefines “about” in the specification. No more specific of an interpretation (e.g., a particular numerical range) is warranted by the use of this term...