APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P, en banc) – It is not obvious to reach across fields and select an undesirable feature from a prior art reference

by Steve Driskill | Oct 7, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

It is generally not obvious to reach across fields and select an admittedly undesirable feature with which to modify another prior art reference. Here, for example, no motivation to combine was found for modifying a primary reference directed to a mobile phone with a...

MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P, en banc) – Manufacturing services by a supplier does not trigger an on sale bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)

by Steve Driskill | Jul 11, 2016 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art

The mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented product for the inventor does not constitute a “commercial sale” of the invention. Here, for example, no on sale bar was found to be triggered by the...

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...

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...

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 Steve Driskill | 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...