Category Archives: Means-plus-function

IPR obviousness decisions reversed for new claim construction; algorithm not required for circuitry

Posted on July 29, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Intel Corp. (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket No. 2020-1589-94 (IPR2018-01326-30, -01340) (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1589.OPINION.7-27-2021_1810321.pdf) MOORE, REYNA, STOLL July 27, 2021 Brief Summary:  Board IPR obviousness decisions vacated and remanded as Qualcomm had no notice of change in claim construction; “algorithm … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness, Software | Leave a comment

DC claim construction and indefiniteness findings affirmed; ineligibility conclusions not reached by FC panel

Posted on February 15, 2021 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc., Funambol, Inc. Docket No. 2020-2196, -2199 (http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2196.OPINION.2-12-2021_1732513.pdf) PROST, REYNA, TARANTO February 12, 2021 Brief Summary:  DC claim construction, invalidity for indefiniteness, and grant of SJ affirmed. Summary:  Synchronoss appealed DC claim constructions and grant … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Means-plus-function, Patent Eligibility (101), Section 101 (see also Patentability), Software | Leave a comment

IPR obviousness findings affirmed except for one claim that “describes a stand-alone alternative” to means-plus-function limitation

Posted on May 28, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB, et al. Docket No. 2019-1105, -1106 (IPR2017-01018, -01019) NEWMAN, O’MALLEY, TARANTO May 15, 2020 Brief Summary: Board IPR obviousness findings affirmed, while its analysis of one means-plus-function claim vacated and remanded. … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Disclosed algorithm found to provide sufficient support for mean-plus-function claim term

Posted on February 3, 2020 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Intelligent Automation Design, LLC v. Zimmer Biomet CMF et al. Docket No. 2019-1100 PROST, WALLACH, HUGHES January 30, 2020 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC determination of means-plus-function construction affirmed but reversed as to whether sufficient structure was disclosed. Summary: IAD appealed … Continue reading →

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

USPTO decision finding Sony’s CD recording claims obvious reversed by Federal Circuit due to improper means-plus-function determination (“computer-implemented” limitation requires algorithm)

Posted on May 23, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Sony Corporation v. Andrei Iancu (USPTO as intervenor) Docket No. 2018-1172 (IPR2016-00834) PROST, NEWMAN (D), DYK May 22, 2019 Brief summary: IPR FWD obviousness finding reversed and remanded as disputed means-plus-function limitation is computer-implemented and requires an algorithm and Board … Continue reading →

Posted in Claim Construction, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

TEK Global, et al. v. Sealant Systems Int., Inc. et al.

Posted on April 4, 2019 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2507 REYNA, TARANTO, CHEN March 29, 2019 Brief summary: DC finding of infringement, damages, and grant of PI affirmed; SSI granted a new trial on invalidity (on remand, DC improperly foreclosed SSI from presenting new obviousness theories). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Damages, Infringement, Lost Profits, Means-plus-function, Royalties | Leave a comment

Diebold Nixdorf, Inc. et al. v. Int. Trade Commission (ITC (Appellee)) / Hyosung TNS Inc. et al. (intervenors)

Posted on August 20, 2018 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2017-2553 PROST, BRYSON, O’MALLEY August 15, 2018 Brief summary: ITC finding that Diebold violated § 337 by importing components of automated teller machines (“ATMs”) that infringe means-plus-function claims reversed as invalid for indefiniteness (§ 112, para. 6). Summary: … Continue reading →

Posted in Indefiniteness, International Trade Commission, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment

Bosch Automotive Service Solutions, LLC v. USPTO

Posted on December 27, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket Nos. 2015-1928 (IPR2014-00183) NEWMAN, CHEN, HUGHES December 22, 2017 Brief summary: PTAB IPR FWD affirmed as to finding of obviousness and anticipation but vacated as to dismissal of contingent motion to amend claims since the that the PTAB “impermissibly … Continue reading →

Posted in Analgous Art, Anticipation (35 USC 102), Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Means-plus-function, Obviousness | Leave a comment

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.

Posted on April 17, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2015-2037 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, WALLACH April 14, 2017 Brief Summary: DC/jury finding of noninfringement by Apple affirmed based on construction of Core Wireless’s means-plus-function claims. Summary: Core Wireless (CW) appealed jury finding that Apple did not infringe claim 17 … Continue reading →

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

Tomita Technologies USA, LLC et al. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.

Posted on March 27, 2017 by Patrick J. Halloran, Ph.D., J.D.

Docket No. 2016-2015 PROST, BRYSON, WALLACH March 17, 2017 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding of no infringement of means-plus-function limitation after consideration of “function-way-result” and “insubstantial differences” tests affirmed. Summary: Tomita appealed DC holding on remand (Tomita Techs., FC 2014) … Continue reading →

Posted in Doctrine of equivalents, Infringement, Means-plus-function | Leave a comment