Charles Bieneman
The Software IP Report



Chris Francis
The Claims Interpreted Report

• 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and the Burdens of Providing Notice for Pre-Suit Damages: Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc.
  by Mark St. Amour
  September 20, 2020
  In Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc. the Federal Circuit reversed a jury determination for pre-suit damages, and vacated an enhancement of such damages, for Netscout’s infringement of U.S. Patent 6,665,725, U.S. Patent 6,839,751, and U.S. Patent 6,954,789, all owned by Packet Intelligence. The patents at issue were all directed to monitoring packets exchanged over a computer network. The ‘798 patent includes system claims, and the ‘725 and ‘751 patents include method claims.… Read More »35 U.S.C. § 287(a) and the Burdens of Providing Notice for Pre-Suit Damages: Packet Intelligence LLC, v. Netscout Systems, Inc.
• How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn
  by Charles Bieneman
  August 17, 2020
  A patent plaintiff saw its jury trial victory vacated when the court granted a defense motion for judgment as a matter of law under FRCP 50(b), finding that the plaintiff had not proved that the accused products had structure corresponding to claimed means.  SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn, No. CV 16-07349 JVS (AGRx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2020). The jury found infringement of claims 11 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,088,802. Those claims… Read More »How to (Not) Prove Infringement of a Means-Plus-Function Patent Claim: SPEX Technologies, Inc. v. Apricorn
• Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 2 of 2)
  by Bryan Hart
  August 10, 2020
  The Federal Circuit recently denied a rehearing en banc in American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings, letting stand a panel decision invalidating a method of manufacturing driveline propeller shafts as ineligible subject matter under § 101. This post covers the multiple concurrences and dissents accompanying the rehearing denial, which reveal a splintered court. Part 1 covered the background and the modified panel decision, in which the court invalidated this claim as ineligible subject… Read More »Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 2 of 2)
• Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 1 of 2)
  by Bryan Hart
  August 5, 2020
  The Federal Circuit has modified a panel decision and denied a rehearing en banc in a closely watched § 101 case, American Axle & Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings. The original decision had found all the claims, which were directed to a method of manufacturing driveline propeller shafts, ineligible subject matter (previously covered in this post). The new panel decision maintained that result for two of the independent claims but remanded on a third independent… Read More »Mechanical Inventions Still Potentially Ineligible: American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings (Part 1 of 2)
• District Court Corrects Patent by Inserting Missing Temperature Range, Finds Claims Indefinite for Insufficient Structure: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland v. SiTime
  by Bryan Hart
  July 27, 2020
  Indefiniteness was decided in a claim construction order from the Northern District of California in VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland v. SiTime. The court corrected a claim by inserting a missing element, but also invalidated all the claims for indefiniteness because the means-plus-function element “drive or sense means” lacked sufficient structure. VTT thus won a battle but lost the war. VTT is a Finnish state-owned nonprofit research company, including for microelectromechanical systems (MEMS).… Read More »District Court Corrects Patent by Inserting Missing Temperature Range, Finds Claims Indefinite for Insufficient Structure: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland v. SiTime
• CAFC Split Favors Patent-Eligibility of Network Monitoring Claims: Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.
  by Charles Bieneman
  July 19, 2020
  A split Federal Circuit panel disagreed whether patent claims directed to network monitoring for whether received packets belong to a particular “conversational flow” are directed to an abstract idea. Judge Lourie was joined by Judge Hughes in affirming a district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law rejecting a defense of patent-eligibility, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test, of claims directed to determining whether received packets belong to a particular… Read More »CAFC Split Favors Patent-Eligibility of Network Monitoring Claims: Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Systems, Inc.

• 35 U.S.C. § 101
• 35 U.S.C. § 112
• 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103
• Attorney-client privilege
• Cancellations
• Copyright
• Covered Business Method Patent Review
• Declaratory Judgments
• Enhanced Patent Damages / Attorney Fees
• Estoppel – Patent
• Ex Parte PTAB Appeals
• Inequitable Conduct
• International Trade Commission
• Intervening Patent Rights
• Miscellaneous
• Patent Civil Procedure
• Patent Claim Interpretation
• Patent Damages
• Patent Eligibility
• Patent Exhaustion
• Patent Experts
• Patent Infringement
• Patent Licenses
• Patent Marking
• Patent Prep and Pros Best Practices
• Patent Standards
• Patent Term Adjustment
• Software Licenses
• Software Patents
• State and Federal Statutes
• The Claims Interpreted Report
• The Software IP Report
• Trade Secrets
• Trademarks
• TTAB Procedure
• USPTO Post-Issue Proceedings