AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, en banc) – Direct infringement can be established by user steps performed in a prescribed manner to receive a benefit

by Steve Driskill | Aug 13, 2015 | [sub] divided, Infringement

Direct infringement under § 271(a) may be established even absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, when an alleged infringer conditions participation or a benefit upon performance of a step and sets the manner or timing...

POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Previous judicial interpretation of a claim term should be treated as persuasive precedent by PTO

by Steve Driskill | Aug 12, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

Where the principal argument to the PTO about the proper interpretation of a claim term is consistent with a previous judicial interpretation, the PTO is obligated to acknowledge that interpretation and assess whether it is consistent with the broadest reasonable...

SUPREMA, INC. v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, En Banc) – Claims capturing later induced infringement may still be sufficient to support ITC exclusion order

by Steve Driskill | Aug 10, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement

An exclusion order from the ITC based on a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(1)(B)(i) may 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...

ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Measurement techniques for a claimed value need not be specified if understood by one of ordinary skill

by Steve Driskill | Aug 7, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness

There is no requirement for the specification to identify a particular measurement technique for ascertaining a claimed value or range of values as long as such an understanding is within the scope of knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, for...

ALLERGAN, INC. v. SANDOZ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A prior art range is not anticipatory when there is material and unpredictable variation across the range

by Steve Driskill | Aug 4, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation

A range disclosed in the prior art does not anticipate a claimed invention falling within that range when it can be shown that there is material and unpredictable variation across the range. Here, for example, a prior art disclosure of a composition comprising...