“Virtually Free From Interference” Not Indefinite Claim Term

In a precedential and split decision, the Federal Circuit reversed the International Trade Commission and found patent claims reciting the term “virtually free from interference” not indefinite. One-E-Way, Inc., v. Internation… Read More

PTAB: Patent Claims Not Supported Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1

Providing an example of claimed subject matter lacking written description in a patent specification, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found selected claims of two patents invalid under 35 U.S.C § 112, ¶1, in parallel Co… Read More

District Court Construes “Small Quantities” as a Definite Term

The term “small quantities of finely-divided liquid” was construed as being definite under §112, second paragraph, in the Markman order in Ecoservices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (CDCA; Docket CV 16-01824-RSWL-SP… Read More

On-Sale Bar and the AIA: New Language, Same Meaning

Despite a change in statutory language, the applicability of the on-sale bar to pursuing patent rights under the America Invents Act (AIA) is unchanged from prior law, said the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Ph… Read More

Written Description Requirement Met by Original Claims

Claims included in an original patent application are part of the written description, which is why the Federal Circuit reversed a summary judgment that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,947,882 were invalid for lack of written descript… Read More

CAFC: Claim Reciting “Near” Displays of Data Not Indefinite

A patent claim that recited displaying one set of information “near” another set of information was not thereby rendered indefinite, the Federal Circuit has held in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., Nos. 2015-1470, 2015-… Read More

Patent Obviousness and Reasonable Expectation of Success

The Federal Circuit has (mostly) sustained the PTAB’s findings that claims of US Patent No. 7,433,483 are obvious over prior art, explaining that obviousness under 35 USC § 103 required, in essence, a showing that the proposed… Read More

PTAB Rejects Secondary Considerations for Patentability

Even though there was no dispute that a commercially successful product encompassed challenged patent claims, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that a patent owner failed to show secondary considerations of non-obvi… Read More

CAFC Explains Obviousness Needs Prior Art Support

A recent Federal Circuit case explains that the Patent Office cannot simply assume, interpolate, or make up reasons why patent claims are obvious, e.g., why prior art references would have been combined.  In In re Schweickert, No… Read More

Secondary Considerations Succeed at the PTAB

In a rare instance of relying on secondary considerations to overcome an allegation of obviousness, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board refused to institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,550,271, directed to a crimp-o… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Business Methods and Patent-Eligibility at the USPTO
September 22, 2017 at 12:00 pm EDT
During the webinar, Charles Bieneman will discuss recent trends and current practices with respect to patent-eligibility at the USPTO’s business methods arts units – including a looks at how some cases are surviving Section 101 rejections. Register

Subscribe