Category Archives: Indefiniteness

Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.

Docket No. 2016-2607, -2650 DYK, MOORE, TARANTO November 21, 2017 Brief summary: DC conclusion of no indefiniteness, that “ATC was entitled to the defense of absolute intervening rights”, and denial of enhanced damages affirmed. Award of lost profits and permanent … Continue reading

Posted in Damages, Indefiniteness, Injunction, Lost Profits | Leave a comment

BASF Corporation v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.

Docket No. 2016-1770 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO November 20, 2017 Brief summary: DC finding of indefiniteness reversed and remanded (e.g., no “context-specific inquiry into whether particular functional language actually provides the required reasonable certainty”). Summary: BASF appealed the “effective for catalyzing”/“effective … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

MasterMine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

Docket No. 2016-2465 NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, STOLL October 30, 2017 Brief summary: DC claim construction affirmed but finding of indefiniteness reversed. Summary: MasterMine (MM) appealed from a stipulated judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of its US 7,945,850 and 8,429,518 directed to … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

In re: David Walter

Docket No. 2016-2256 MOORE, SCHALL, O’MALLEY August 21, 2017 Non-precedential Brief summary: Board decision on indefiniteness of the term “block-like” affirmed because, e.g., it “is a term of degree, without objective criteria in the patent’s intrinsic record for establishing the … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness, Reexamination | Leave a comment

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al. v. Telebrands Corp. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1410 MOORE, WALLACH, STOLL January 24, 2017 Brief Summary: DC grant of PI and no invalidity for indefiniteness or obviousness affirmed. Summary: Telebrands appealed DC entry of preliminary injunction (PI) barring it from selling its “Balloon Bonanza, or … Continue reading

Posted in Analgous Art, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Sonix Technology Co., Ltd. v. Publications International, Ltd. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1449 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, TARANTO January 5, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision that “visually negligible” is indefinite reversed as the meaning of the term is not “purely subjective” in view of the specification and prosecution history. Summary: Sonix appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2015-2067 REYNA, HUGHES, STOLL January 12, 2017 Brief Summary: DC decision finding of direct infringement by physicians and induced infringement (§ 271(b)) by Teva as well as no obviousness affirmed. Summary: Teva et al. (“Teva”) appealed DC finding … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Differentiation, Indefiniteness, Inducement to Infringe, Infringement, Obviousness | Leave a comment