Tag Archives: Patents

Visual Memory v. NVIDIA: The Importance of a Robust Written Description

Michael SteinBy Michael Stein on Posted in Patent
Introduction In Visual Memory v. NVIDIA (Fed. Cir. 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s holding that Visual Memory’s U.S. Patent No. 5,953,740 is drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter. Instead, the court ruled that the ’740 patent claims an improvement to computer memory systems and is not directed to an abstract idea. The ’740 Patent … Continue Reading

A Split Panel of the Federal Circuit Debates the Standards for Definiteness

Allen SokalBy Allen Sokal on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
In Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co. LP, Appeal No. 2016-1013 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the panel, consisting of Chief Judge Prost (authoring the opinion) and Judges Newman and Bryson, unanimously reversed the district court’s summary judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 2. But Judge Newman vigorously rejected the … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Denies Sequenom’s Petition for Certiorari

Ron KernBy Ron Kern on Posted in Uncategorized
On June 27, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, without comment, denied Sequenom’s petition for certiorari, leaving in place the Court’s previous rulings prohibiting the patenting of laws of nature and natural phenomenon. Sequenom filed its writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, 2016, asking the Court to provide clarification regarding the … Continue Reading

First Post-Grant Review Written Opinions from PTAB Invalidate Two Patents for Livestock Valuation

Shannon McCueBy Shannon McCue on Posted in Patent
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its first written opinions based on a trial of the relatively new Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeeding and genetic factors. American Simmental Association (ASA) brought the petitions for review of the Leachman patents in response to a lawsuit filed by Leachman. ASA is an organization formed in 1968 … Continue Reading

In Re Smith: A Raw Deal for Inventors?

Michael SteinBy Michael Stein on Posted in Patent
The recent decision in In re Smith (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of claims 1-18 as being ineligible for patent under 35 USC § 101, represents another example of the shrinking scope of patent-eligibility since the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.[1] As discussed below, this case concerned the patent-eligibility of … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Tasked With Analyzing Evidence For Proof That Defendant Had the State of Mind Necessary For Induced Infringement

Scott SimpkinsBy Scott Simpkins on Posted in Federal Circuit, Patent
On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a grant-vacate-remand order in a dispute between rival medical device companies Medtronic and NuVasive. The order directs the Federal Circuit to revisit its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015). Commil clarified that … Continue Reading

What CLS Bank Taketh, Copyright May Giveth Back

Chad RutkowskiBy Chad Rutkowski on Posted in Uncategorized
CLS Bank and Its Impact on Software Patents Courts, commentators and clients will be struggling for some time to assess the impact on software patents of Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in Alice v. CLS Bank.  Interpreted one way, the decision kills patents directed at computer-implemented business methods.  Interpreted another way, it’s business as usual for … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
[T]here is no “supplier exception” to the on-sale bar, [and] it is of no consequence that the “commercial offer for sale” [was] made by [the patentee’s] own supplier and was made to [the patentee] itself. On August 14, 2013, in Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Aria Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc.

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
While the facts may show that damages would be reparable, this assumption is not sufficient [for purposes of a preliminary injunction analysis]. In the face of that kind of universal assumption, patents would lose their character as an exclusive right as articulated by the Constitution and become at best a judicially imposed and monitored compulsory … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc.

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
Where a court holds a claim obvious without making findings of secondary considerations, the lack of specific consideration of secondary considerations ordinarily requires a remand. On August 6, 2013, in Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rader,* Reyna, Davis) affirmed the … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
[E]vidence relating to all four Graham factors — including objective evidence of secondary considerations — must be considered before determining whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the art at the time of invention. On August 7, 2013, in Apple, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, the U.S. Court of … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. On June 13, 2013, in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed-in-part and reversed-in-part the Federal Circuit judgment, … Continue Reading

Patent Watch: Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc.

By Dr. Lawrence M. Sung on Posted in Uncategorized
“[A]n agreement of confidentiality, or circumstances creating a similar expectation of secrecy, may negate a ‘public use’ where there is not commercial exploitation” [even] when an unaffiliated third party is responsible for the allegedly public use. On May 20, 2013, in Dey, L.P. v. Sunovion Pharms., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal … Continue Reading
LexBlog