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.
KEURIG, INCORPORATED v. STURM FOODS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Patent exhaustion of method claims by product sales
Patent exhaustion jurisprudence “focuses on the exhaustion of the patents at issue in their entirety, rather than the exhaustion of the claims at issue on an individual basis.” Accordingly, even the method claims of a given patent may be exhausted by the authorized...
INTELLECT WIRELESS, INC. v. HTC CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Curing otherwise inequitable conduct
It does not suffice that one knowing of misrepresentations in an application or in its prosecution “merely supplies the examiner with accurate facts without calling his attention to the untrue or misleading assertions sought to be overcome, leaving him to formulate...
KRUSE TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIP v. VOLKSWAGEN AG (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Claim differentiation regarding irreconcilable language
The wording of the claims here includes imprecise and inconsistent term usage, making them difficult to follow and easy to misconstrue under the normal canons of claim construction. While the intended meaning may shine through in parts (including the dependent...
BROADCOM CORPORATION v. EMULEX CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – “Corresponding to” does not mean “equal to”
While the specification here contained specific statements that the elements recited as “corresponding to” one another need not necessarily be equal, the court made clear that even the plain meaning of “corresponding to” does not mean “equal to.” According to the...
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Covering unavoidable infringers
Unavoidable performance of a claim still constitutes infringement. As such, it may be generally prudent to avoid unnecessary “determining” steps, for example, that would require further underlying processing even though the end result is the same. Even if such...
TECSEC, INC. v. INTL BUSINESS MACHINES (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Means-plus-function invocation based on the specificity of the recited function
The sufficient structure inquiry focuses on whether the claim recites sufficient structure to perform “the functions in question.” The more generic the function, the more generic the specific structure sufficient to perform it can be. In addition, it should be noted...
MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION v. REXAM BEAUTY (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Objective evidence of non-obviousness across a broad claim scope
Objective evidence of non-obviousness “must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.” Background / Facts: The patents here relate to custom-made “dispenser assemblies,” i.e., spray pumps with an attached dip tube, for...
SUNOVION PHARMACEUTICALS v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Characterizing the “invention” during prosecution
The definition of a claim term can be affected through “repeated and definitive remarks” in the prosecution history. In particular, a patentee will usually be bound by any characterizations of the “invention” as a whole. Background / Facts: The patents here are...
NETWORK SIGNATURES, INC. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTO (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Inequitable conduct pertaining to certifying “unintentional” delays
The Federal Circuit is exceptionally reluctant to find inequitable conduct, especially in non-substantive matters. In particular here, compliance with the standard PTO procedure for delayed payment, using the standard PTO form, does not provide clear and convincing...
RAMBUS INC. v. REA (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Objective evidence of non-obviousness across a broad claim scope
Objective evidence of nonobviousness need only be “reasonably commensurate with the scope of the claims.” There is no requirement that an applicant or patentee produce objective evidence of nonobviousness for every potential embodiment of the claim. Background /...