Monthly Archives: May 2014

Suffolk Technologies, LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.

Posted on May 30, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1392 RADER, PROST, CHEN May 27, 2014 Brief Summary: DC claim construction found not to conflict with the claims or exclude the preferred embodiment. Newsgroup post was found to be a printed § 102 publication (“a printed publication … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Claim Construction | Leave a comment

Edward Tobinick v. Kjell Olmarker and Bjorn Rydevik

Posted on May 20, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1499 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH May 19, 2014 Brief Summary: PTAB claim construction decision affirmed based on intrinsic evidence and expert testimonry. The lack of written description decision was reversed because the application conveyed “that Tobinick had possession of … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Interference, Written description | Leave a comment

Monsanto Company et al. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company et al.

Posted on May 15, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1349 LOURIE, REYNA, WALLACH May 9, 2014 Brief Summary: The FC panel agreed with Monsanto that the DC did not abuse its discretion as it “did not sanction DuPont for making legal arguments concerning the objective meanings of … Continue reading →

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment

General Electric Company and GE Wind Energy, LLC v. Thomas Wilkins et al.

Posted on May 13, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1170 LOURIE, TARANTO, CHEN May 8, 2014 Brief Summary: Mr. Wilkin’s testimony was found to lack credibility and corroboration required under the “rule of reason” by which inventorship claims are assessed. Summary: Thomas Wilkins appealed from DC finding … Continue reading →

Posted in Inventorship | Leave a comment

In re Thomas G. Packard

Posted on May 9, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-204 O’MALLEY, PLAGER (concurring opinion), TARANTO May 6, 2014 Brief Summary: Rejection of claims for indefiniteness by the USPTO is proper if it “identifies ways in which the language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

In re Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)

Posted on May 8, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1407 DYK, MOORE, WALLACH May 8, 2014 Brief Summary: Board decision that Roslin Insitute’s claims to cloned cattle, sheep, pigs and goats non-patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 affirmed in view of Funk Bros., Chakrabarty, In … Continue reading →

Posted in Patentability | Leave a comment

GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v. Agilight, Inc.

Posted on May 7, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1267 RADER, MOORE, REYNA (concur/dissent in part) May 1, 2014 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ of noninfringement affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part and remanded because “[n]othing in the intrinsic record requires a departure from [the] plain and ordinary meaning” of … Continue reading →

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

Michael J. Vaillancourt v. Becton Dickinson & Company

Posted on May 6, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1408 RADER, LINN, TARANTO April 24, 2014 Brief Summary: The appeal was dismissed because the Appellant was not the patent owner. The patent was assigned to a one-person corporation during reexamination and decision was appealed in the name … Continue reading →

Posted in Appeal, Assignment / Ownership | Leave a comment

K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH (On Clouds GmbH)

Posted on May 5, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2013-1316, -1317 LOURIE, DYK, WALLACH April 23, 2014 Non-precedential Brief Summary: Board decision that certain claims were anticipated affirmed but decision that others would not have been obvious reversed as “inherently disclosed” in the prior art (based in … Continue reading →

Posted in Anticipation (35 USC 102), Obviousness | Leave a comment

Apple Inc. and Next Software, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Posted on May 2, 2014 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2012-1548, -1549 RADER (dissent in part), PROST (concur/dissent in part), REYNA April 25, 2014 Brief Summary: DC decision centered on claim construction and infringement affirmed-in-part, reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part, and remanded. Claim construction (including consideration of post-issuance foreign prosecution statements) … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Expert Testimony, Infringement, Prosecution History Estoppel | Leave a comment