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.
COGNEX CORPORATION v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – “Each” element of a plurality
While caution should be taken to not read too much into this non-precedential opinion, especially since this line of argument was not specifically addressed, it is troubling to see another “plurality” of elements being read on all of the elements of the accused...
MOTOROLA MOBILITY v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Inherency of components performing a given function
Inherency is a high standard to meet. It is not enough, for example, that a particular function is performed by a given device to infer that that device inherently includes a component for that function. “Inherency requires more than probabilities or possibilities.”...
SUPREMA, INC./CROSS MATCH v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Claims capturing later induced infringement insufficient to support ITC exclusion order
An exclusion order from the ITC based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may not be predicated on a theory of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where direct infringement does not occur until after importation of the articles the exclusion order...
GALDERMA LABORATORIES v. TOLMAR (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Industry standards do not by themselves teach away
“A teaching that a composition may be optimal or standard does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into other compositions,” as required for a showing that a given reference teaches away from the invention claimed. Background / Facts: The...
VISTAN CORPORATION v. FADEI USA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Extrinsic evidence supporting intrinsic means-plus-function structures
While it is true that means-plus-function elements are interpreted narrowly as covering the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification, extrinsic evidence may be brought in to show that one skilled in the art would recognize that structure within the...
CENTILLION DATA SYSTEMS v. QWEST COMMUNICATIONS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Indirect performance of an element’s stated purpose
While a highly fact specific inquiry here, in general, an element deployed for a specific purpose need not be directly used for that purpose. For example, a file format “for ... display on a personal computer” covers various PC-compatible formats, even if further...
IN RE EATON (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Full force of definitions in the specification
While a highly fact specific inquiry here, the bottom line is that the specification’s definition of the claim terms is controlling and should be fully respected. Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from rejection at the PTO relates to treating psoriasis by...
OHIO WILLOW WOOD CO. v. ALPS SOUTH, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Inequitable conduct for asserting selective facts from litigation record
The fair context of any facts pulled from a related litigation record should be fully disclosed to the PTO. Picking-and-choosing certain facts while withholding or even misrepresenting others from a record to which the PTO is not privy may rise to the level of...
IN RE MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Broadest reasonable interpretation of device or component labels
Although ultimately inconsequential and therefore probably dicta, this may be a reasonably good case to at least note when faced with an examiner who focuses only on the relationship between claimed devices or components while refusing to give patentable weight to the...
PIGGY PUSHERS, LLC v. SKIDDERS FOOTWEAR, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Preamble limitations
A particular preamble may be deemed to be limiting if, when the elements recited in the body of the claims are combined as claimed, the result must itself be the type of device recited in the preamble. Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to...