Here is a case illustrating the general rule that the preamble of a patent claim is rarely construed as a substantive claim limitation. In Georgetown Rail Equipment Co. v. Holland L.P.¸ No. 2016-2297 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 1,…
Read More
Because “a finding of direct infringement is a predicate to any finding of indirect infringement,” the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s findings of indirect patent infringement where the evidence did not…
Read More
When a plaintiff accuses multiple defendants of cooperating to infringe a patent, a well-pled complaint must make clear which defendant controls an accused system, and how defendants cooperate to practice a claimed metho…
Read More
If you are trying to disqualify a prior art reference as non-analogous in either patent prosecution or litigation, here is a case to remind you of limitations of such arguments. In Smartdoor Holdings, Inc. v. Edmit Indus…
Read More
Does the fact that relevant information is “arguably within [the defendant’s] sole possession” affect the plaintiff’s burden in pleading a claim for patent infringement? In Prowire, LLC v. Apple, Inc. , the Uni…
Read More
When can prior art references be combined to invalidate patent claims as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103? Here is one case providing a lesson on this question. In Nidec Motor Corporation v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor…
Read More
In Xactware Solutions, Inc. v. Pictometry Int’l Corp., No. IPR2016-00593, Paper 45 (PTAB Aug. 28, 2017), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held Xactware did not establish that a document was a printed publication…
Read More
In Stern v. Globus Medical in the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-91-RGA), theMarkman construction of the claim term “along a longitudinal axis” was “on line or course parallel or close to,” i.e.,…
Read More
In Audio MPEG, Inc. v. Dell Inc., the Eastern District of Virginia denied summary judgment of patent exhaustion because it was ambiguous whether a license between Audio MPEG and Dell’s supplier Microsoft covered the al…
Read More
Patent claims to “providing global biometric identification services to a plurality of remote parties” are directed to an unpatentable abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101, said the court in IQS US Inc. v. Calsoft La…
Read More
