Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Terlep v. Brinkmann

Terlep sued Brinkmann, Home Depot and Wal-mart for infringing his patent relating to using omni-directional light emitting diode lamps. The C.A.F.C., quoting Phillips, said '[t]he specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term,' and refused to construe the claim term 'clear' expansively.
See also,

Monday, August 22, 2005

Pause v. Tivo

Citing Phillips, the C.A.F.C. construed two claim limitations in Pauses' DVR patent. Both the limitation, 'circular storage buffer', and the limitation 'time interval of pre-determined length', were affirmed as consistent with the specification and prosecution history.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

In re Kumar

When the B.P.A.I., sua sponte, made its own calculations based on a prior art reference for the first time in its appeal decision, the B.P.A.I erred in not allowing the applicant to respond to this 'new ground of rejection.'

Capon v. Eshhar v. Dudas

Datamize v. Plumtree Software

The patent claimed an 'aesthetically pleasing' computer screen, and did not define the term in the specification. The court held that the term 'aesthetically pleasing' was indefinite and invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112. See also,

Harris Corporation v. Ericsson Inc.

Harris patented a system for reducing interference in celluar transmissions using computer software. Ericsson made a new argument construing the construction of a means-plus-function claim limitation using a recent precedent. The C.A.F.C. held that waiver would not apply to arguments only slightly changed on appeal . The dissent held that the Ericsson's argument was a paradigm shift. See also,

Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corporation

Monday, August 15, 2005

Warner Lambert v.Teva Pharmaceuticals

The C.A.F.C. reveresed a finding of summary judgment when the summary judgment failed to address the appelant's claim that the patent was not enabled.

Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company

The C.A.F.C. held that applying the Doctorine of Equivalents to the claim limitation "slidably mounted" to find a "rotatably mounted" apparatus infringing would "completely vitiate" the claim limitation.

Pharmacia v. Par Pharmaceutical

Friday, August 12, 2005

Marley Mouldings v. Mikron Industries

Marley Mouldings patented a method of forming plastic products used to replace traditionally wood products, such as door frames, window trim and molding. The C.A.F.C. distinguishes this case from Honeywell v. ITC. The Marley claims are not "insoluably ambiguous" because persons of experience in the field of polymer processing would understand how to measure by volume and convert weight to volume from bulk density data. By comparison, the claims in Honeywell required a specific method of measuring to determine if the measurement was in the claimed range, but such method of measuring was not specified in the Honeywell patent.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

Collegenet v. Applyyourself

Collegenet owns a patent for a process of allowing college applicants to complete applications for many educational institutions through its website. During claim construction of its patent, the C.A.F.C. construed the term "format" to mean a specified format (by the educational institution), and not any possible format.

Ericsson v. InterDigital v. Nokia

Nokia moved to intervene in the lawsuit between Ericsson and InterDigital, which was previously settled, dismissed and under seal, because Nokia's royalty payments under the InterDigital patent are based on a "Most Favored Licensee" clause. Applying the Fifth Circuit law, the C.A.F.C. found no "live controversy" for Nokia to intervene.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

NTP v. Research in Motion

NTP holds a method patent on email systems such as those used by RIM's Blackberry. RIM's method of delivering email requires all email to pass through an "interface-switch" located in Canada. The C.A.F.C. has held that just because a single step of the method occurs outside the United States does not preclude a finding of infringement if the "beneficial use" occurs inside the United States. The 75 page opinion details the analysis.

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

General Motors v. General Electric

The C.A.F.C. considered whether the sale of G.M.'s planetary bearings constituted experimental use. Under section 102(b), sale of a product more than one year before filing a patent application bars patentability, unless the inventor intended that the sale was for experimental use. The C.A.F.C. considered thirteen factors of experimental use and found that G.M. did not sufficiently exercise control over the use of the product and did raise G.E.'s awareness of the confidentiality or experimental nature of the use of the planetary bearings.