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.
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea
A mere functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, the novel use of a downloadable application for out-of-region delivery of regional broadcast content was found to lack an inventive...
AFFINITY LABS OF TEXAS, LLC v. AMAZON.COM INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – User-based customization does not by itself amount to significantly more than an abstract idea
User-based customization does not by itself amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, a network-based media system having “a customized user interface page for [a] given user” was found to be nothing more than an abstract idea because...
COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. SPRINT COMMUNICATION COMPANY (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite
An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Here, for example, the claimed use of a “processing system” as part of a method where the point of novelty lies elsewhere was found to be incapable of...
CLASSCO, INC. v. APPLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A change in functionality does not automatically negate an obvious combination of prior art elements
A change in specific functionality does not automatically negate a combination of prior art elements in establishing obviousness. Here, for example, modifying a prior art reference’s telephone speaker to perform the claimed announcing of a caller’s identity as well as...
YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT v. ABBOTT GMBH & CO. KG (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Identifying an invention by its known properties may support claims to undisclosed yet inherent properties
A disclosure that adequately identifies an invention by its known properties may be used to support later claims to undisclosed yet inherent properties. Here, for example, a protein described in a priority application in terms of a partial amino acid sequence and...
LIFENET HEALTH v. LIFECELL CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation
Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation. Here, for example, a plasticizer claimed as being “not removed from” an internal matrix prior to transplantation into a human was found to be directly infringed by a competing product...
MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Using a computer to automate novel as opposed to conventional activity is not an abstract idea
The claimed use of a computer to automate novel as opposed to conventional activity is not directed to an abstract idea. Here, for example, claims focusing on the automatic use of rules of a particular type for creating 3-D animation were found to be non-abstract...
UCB, INC. v. YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Unentered claims may prevent other claims from being interpreted to encompass the same subject matter
Claims denied entry during prosecution for including new matter may prevent other claims from being later interpreted to encompass the same subject matter. Here, for example, claims directed to a particular species of cytotoxin that were rejected during prosecution...
VOCALTAG LTD. v. AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Algorithmic structure for a means-plus-function element need not be illustrated explicitly in the drawings
Algorithmic structure corresponding to a means-plus-function element need not be illustrated explicitly in the drawings when the associated text of the specification makes clear that the claimed function is contemplated. Here, for example, an algorithm illustrated in...
IN RE NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Similarities in manufacturing processes alone cannot negate an explicit difference with the prior art
Similarities in manufacturing processes alone cannot negate an explicit difference between a product in the prior art and that of the claimed invention. Here, for example, the desugared sugar beet molasses of the claimed invention was found to sufficiently distinguish...