RICHARD WILLIAMSON v. CITRIX ONLINE, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P, en banc) – No heightened bar for overcoming presumption that a limitation without the word “means” escapes § 112, ¶ 6

by | Jun 16, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Despite a decade of precedent to the contrary, the heightened bar to overcoming the presumption that a limitation expressed in functional language without using the word “means” is not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 has been overruled. Here, for example, the claimed...

MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. PROXYCONN, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Substitute claims submitted during IPR must be shown patentable over all the prior art of record

by | Jun 16, 2015 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure

A patentee may be required to show that substitute claims submitted during IPR are patentable over the prior art of record, including prior art that was not part of the original bases of unpatentability for which review of the claims being substituted was instituted....

ARIOSA DIAGNOSTICS, INC v. SEQUENOM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – The process steps themselves must be new and useful when encompassing a natural phenomenon

by | Jun 12, 2015 | [sub] biotech, Subject Matter Eligibility

For process claims that encompass natural phenomenon, the process steps themselves are the additional features that must be new and useful. Here, for example, using a newly discovered source of cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) to conduct fetal screening was found to be...

OIP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Automating routine tasks for speed and accuracy is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible

by | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Relying on a computer to perform otherwise routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible even when speed and accuracy is advantageous. Here, for example, a method of dynamic price optimization in an e-commerce...

SEALANT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL v. TEK GLOBAL, S.R.L. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Amorphous claim terms may be limited to the disclosed embodiments in the absence of further guidance

by | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation

Amorphous claim terms, as opposed to those that are clear and well-defined, may be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification when there is no guidance as to how the claim terms can be more broadly applied to a wider range of implementations....