The PTAB interpreted claim language in the form of “at least one of A and B” to mean at least one of A and at least one of B in Ex parte Dong-Shin Jung et al. (Appeal No. 2016/008290, designated Informative on July 1…
Read More
Evidence that a patented feature drives customer demand is insufficient to justify damages under the entire market value rule (EMVR) when non-patented features may drive customer demand. Power Integrations, No. 2017-1875…
Read More
A plaintiff seeking to enforce patents claiming automated methods for uploading multimedia content was ordered to pay defendants’ attorney fees based on a finding of an “exceptional case” under U.S.C. § 285. Cel…
Read More
The Federal Circuit has clarified what arguments may be made in a reply brief during a patent appeal. In In Re: Durance, No. 2017-1486 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s obviousness decisi…
Read More
Patent claims directed to providing output in tactile patterns on a mobile device to provide an encoded message have survived a 35 USC § 101 patent-eligibility challenges under the Alice/Mayo test. In Ironworks Patents…
Read More
Where distinct physical concepts recited in a patent claim and applied prior art are related and can achieve same results, do not count on being able to distinguish teachings of the prior art. In Mobileye Vision Techno…
Read More
The Federal Circuit’s famous (or infamous) decision that one DDR Holdings’ patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was used to support a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of § 101 for three ot…
Read More
The Federal Circuit has held that claim terms “program” and “user interface code,” as used in the phrases “program that can operate the movement of the pointer” and “user interface code being configured to…
Read More
Be careful with the conventional wisdom that tells a patent drafter to use permissive, open-ended language when describing features of an invention. Like me, you may have been taught to avoid “patent obscenities” l…
Read More
A decision holding that an a YouTube video is a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is a reminder that one should always assume that content on the Internet accessible via a public search engine qualifies as pr…
Read More
