Intellectual Property (21 summaries)
Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC
The definition of a term claimed in one applicant's original prosecution was treated as intrinsic evidence when construing the claim of the same term in another applicant's application.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Construction
Medtronic Corevalve, L.L.C. v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Priority was not established when an applicant did not list all previous amended and foreign applications on every intervening application.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Invalidity
Institut Pasteur v. Focarino
The board must give full consideration to resources which teach away from claimed inventions outcome.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Biological Patents
Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v Tolmar, Inc.
When the result was a matter of degree and was not different in kind, obviousness was found.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the causal nexus required for injunction on a patent-by-patent basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Remedies
Intellect Wireless, Inc. V HTC Corp.
Applicant must inform PTO of the precise claim location of a misstatement when correcting a misstatement during prosecution.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Inequitable Conduct
SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.
In determining whether manufacturing processes are similar enough to support an infringement claim, expert analysis can be used.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringment
Bowman v. Monsanto, Co.
Remanufacturing or copying an article is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Patent Exhaustion
Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson
Means-plus-function descriptions are limited by clearly linked corresponding structure descriptions.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Interpretation
Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn, Inc.
PATENTS; INDUCED INFRINGEMENT: Datasheets and other markings on patented material showed actual knowledge required to prove induced infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Animal tests of multiple animals are not required for enablement purposes of pharmaceutical patents, so long as the claim reflects varied effects on different species.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
General Electric Co. v. Wilkins
The Clear and Convincing evidentiary standard required to rebut the presumption of patent validity will not be met when the key corroborative witness testimony is predicated on the challenging party’s own sequence of events.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Technology Patents, LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.
Doctrine of Equivalents will not broaden claims beyond their explicit terms.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Applied Materials, Inc.
Simple determination of optimum ranges for operation, and development of more comprehensive explanations of variable relationship based on broad ranges of prior art, does not qualify as non-obvious.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v emsCharts, Inc.
Clear and convincing evidence cannot be established upon successful claim reexamination when material is not deemed "but-for" material.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
InterDigital Communications, LLC. v. International Trade Commission
The differentiation doctrine presumption is particularly strong in cases where a limitation is the sole differentiation between claims and one party is asserting a dependent claim on an independent claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Copyright covers only the specific writing of program code, not program function, or presentation.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
In re Youman
The Patent and Trademark Office must determine whether the narrowing language related to surrendered subject matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.
In discerning obviousness, the court looks to whether one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable motivation to modify the earlier claimed compound to make the compound of the asserted claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Undisclosed prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Ergo Licensing, LLC v CareFusion 303, Inc.
Means-plus-function terms are required to point out the particular structure used to perform the function, lest it be deemed “indefinite.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents