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.

ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. APPLE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Inaccurate examiner statements and the sliding scale of claim term disclaimer

For disclaimer to attach to a given claim term, there must be a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope by the applicant. Comments by other parties, such as the examiner in his or her reasons for allowance, are not by themselves sufficient to rise to the level...

CYBERFONE SYSTEMS v. CNN INTERACTIVE GROUP (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Patent eligibility of data categorization and storage implemented by computers

“[T]he well-known concept of categorical data storage, i.e., the idea of collecting information in classified form, then separating and transmitting that information according to its classification, is an abstract idea that is not patent-eligible.” The fact that a...

FRANS NOOREN AFDICHTINGSSYSTEM v. STOPAQ AMCORR INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Prosecution history disclaimer / estoppel based on examiner commentary on the prior art

An examiner’s interpretation of the prior art by itself is not sufficient to warrant prosecution history disclaimer or estoppel. Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to protecting substrates – for example, manhole covers, underground tanks,...

Topics