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.
CUTSFORTH, INC. v. MOTIVEPOWER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes sub-components
The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...
PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP. v. PERMOBIL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference
A geometric orientation should be interpreted relative to an appropriate geometric reference rather than an object as a whole. Here, for example, a “perpendicular” orientation of a substantially planar mounting plate relative to a drive-wheel axis was found to require...
TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNAT v. SUNGARD DATA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely
Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating...
SIMPLEAIR, INC. v. SONY ERICSSON MOBILE (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings
Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings. Here, for example, the claimed “data channel” added during prosecution was found to be distinct from the specification’s discussion of “data feeds” because the term “data channel” was not used in the...
PURDUE PHARMA L.P. v. DEPOMED, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A problem solved by a proposed combination must be known generally or derived directly from the prior art
A problem to be solved that forms the basis of a reason to combine the prior art must be known in the art or derived directly from the prior art to avoid the impropriety of hindsight bias. Here, for example, the problem of solubility to be solved by the proposed...
DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – A method step “forming” a given element may exclude from that element any features requiring other steps
A method step recited as resulting in the “formation” of a given element may be interpreted as excluding from that element any features requiring additional steps. Here, for example, the claimed “patterning” of an imaging layer “to form a first patterned layer” was...
CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. SUD-CHEMIE AG (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – The disclosure-dedication rule does not require an explicit labeling of “alternative” embodiments
The disclosure-dedication rule does not require that the specification explicitly label which embodiments are “alternatives” to bar otherwise apparent alternatives from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, even though the specification...
IN RE CREE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Self-serving statements from researchers about their own work does not constitute industry praise
Self-serving statements from researchers about their own work does not constitute industry praise for the purposes of establishing secondary evidence of nonobviousness. Here, for example, press releases describing work similar to the claimed invention but made by...
DELL INC. v. ACCELERON, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language
It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the...
IN RE SMITH (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas without unconventional game elements
Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas unless they employ unconventional game elements, rather than conventional elements such as playing cards. Here, for example, a wagering game utilizing real or virtual standard playing cards was found to be...