Monthly Archives: October 2013

Astrazeneca LP et al. v. Breath Limited et al.

Posted on October 31, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1312, -1352 RADER, BRYSON, LINN October 30, 2013 Non-precedential Brief summary: DC claim construction reversed and remanded because there was no “clear and unmistakable disclaimer” and the ordinary meaning controls. Obviousness conclusion affirmed as prior art showed “that … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Generics / ANDA, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Posted on October 29, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1042 RADER, NEWMAN, LOURIE, DYK, PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY, REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO, and CHEN (en banc) October 22, 2013 Brief summary: Petition for rehearing en banc was denied but the two dissents argued that this denial “expressly [held] that … Continue reading →

Posted in Infringement | Leave a comment

Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG

Posted on October 25, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1007 TARANTO October 22, 2013 Brief summary: DC decision that “computational means” is indefinite was affirmed because “algorithm whose terms are defined and understandable” was not provided by the specification. Summary: Ibormeith appealed DC grant of SJ to … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

In re Lutz Biederman and Jurgen Harms

Posted on October 22, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1080 MOORE, LINN, O’MALLEY October 18, 2013 Brief summary: Board decision affirming Examiner’s obviousness rejection vacated and remanded because “[t]he Board…found new facts as the basis for concluding that the combination [of references] would have been obvious”. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Obviousness | Leave a comment

TecSec, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. et al.

Posted on October 17, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1415 MOORE, LINN, REYNA October 2, 2013 Brief summary: Certain claims terms found not to invoke § 112, para. 6 because “the claim recites sufficient structure for performing the described functions in their entirety” and others supported by … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Meadwestvaco Corporation v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc. et al.

Posted on October 15, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1518, -1527 PROST, O’MALLEY, TARANTO September 26, 2013 Brief summary: DC judgments relating to claim construction, indefiniteness, the exclusion of expert testimony, and infringement were affirmed but the nonobviousness decision reversed as improper at the SJ stage. Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

In re City of Houston and In re The Government of the District of Columbia

Posted on October 2, 2013 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2012-1356 and 2012-1418 LOURIE, PLAGER, BENSON (DCJ) October 1, 2013 Brief summary: Municipalities cannot register official seals due to prohibition in Section 2(b) of the Lanham Act. Summary: The City of Houston appealed TTAB determination that it was … Continue reading →

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment