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.
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – A “respective” one
In my opinion, the court went out of its way to save a poorly drafted claim and relied too heavily on the specification for claim language that was on its face not ambiguous (especially for a claim that was not original). Despite acknowledging that “[a]t first glance”...
ALLERGAN v. BARR LABS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Being your own lexicographer
While couched in terms of being your own lexicographer, this case mainly illustrates the broader point that intrinsic evidence trumps extrinsic evidence in claim construction. Perhaps most importantly, I think the patentee’s use of dependent claims to set up the...
ERNIE BALL, INC. v. EARVANA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Mathematical issues of indefiniteness
Be careful when using mathematical terms that have very broad even if precise definitions. While the applicant here clearly intended to convey only the basic idea that the shape of the intonation portions is not arced like the crest of a sine wave, they ended up...
REXNORD INDUSTRIES v. KAPPOS (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Inter partes appeal procedure
“On judicial review, the correctness of the decision appealed from can be defended by the appellee on any ground that is supported by the record.” Background / Facts: The patent here is directed to a mechanical conveyor belt formed of rows of belt modules interlinked...
SOVERAIN SOFTWARE v. NEWEGG (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – Obviousness of internet implementations
Routine modifications that are a part of adapting an existing system to the Internet do not render the adaptations nonobvious. (See also, Western Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys., Inc., 626 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2010), holding the claimed system of...
HARRIS CORP. v. FED EX CORP. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Claim construction: all or a subset
This is a cautionary tale of how some claims may be easily designed around when the competitor is willing to sacrifice some functionality. Undoubtedly, the drafter here probably thought about the product and how it makes sense to naturally transmit all the data you...
PARALLEL NETWORKS, LLC. v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (P) – The “invention”
A broad term in the claims cannot “rewrite the patent.” Make sure your specification adequately supports your broader terms and avoid characterizing the “invention” as something more specific. Background / Facts: The patent here provides a “dynamically generated,...
SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. ARTHREX, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Importing requirements for the greater context
A rather fact specific inquiry here, but the basic lesson seems to be that a claim should not be interpreted so as to import requirements for the greater context when the claim itself is more specifically directed to a particular aspect. Background / Facts: The patent...
IN RE AVID IDENTIFICATION (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Waiver of means-plus-function interpretation
A rare example of a scenario in which a means-plus-function interpretation could have actually helped the applicant – and yet they still lost. While the court acknowledged that “the Board has on occasion overlooked particular procedural defaults," it concluded that...
IN RE CHEVALIER (Fed. Cir. 2013) (NP) – Physical combinability for obviousness
Physical combinability is not required for a finding of obviousness. It is true that the combination of teachings must be operable, but not that the physical combination of the particular devices in the references themselves must be operable. Typically, the better...