Plain and Ordinary Claim Construction

by Mark St. Amour on October 11th, 2018
In Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple, No. 2017-2265 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2018), the Federal Circuit construed a pair of claim terms under their plain and ordinary meaning in reversing summary judgment that Apple was n… Read More

Requiring Condition Can Overcome Art Resulting In Condition

by Peter Keros on August 20th, 2018
A claim that required a specific condition overcame prior art that merely disclosed an embodiment resulting in satisfaction of the condition. In re Facebook, Inc., No. 2017-2524 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2018) (nonprecedential) (C.J. Pr… Read More

When is Patent Prior Art Distinct but Not Different?

by Charles Bieneman on June 18th, 2018
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 Technologies Ltd… Read More

Patent Drafting Tip: Take Care with Open-Ended Descriptions

by Charles Bieneman on June 7th, 2018
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” like “inv… Read More

Prior Art is What an Internet Search Engine Sees

by Charles Bieneman on June 6th, 2018
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 prior art. … Read More

Contemporary Evidence Beats Google Obviousness Challenge

by Bryan Hart on March 13th, 2018
The Federal Circuit recently upheld two patents against an obviousness challenge by Google. (Google v. At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust (Fed. Cir. 2018).) This case demonstrates the importance of contemporary evidence to supp… Read More

Distribution Agreement held to be “Offer for Sale”

by Mike McCandlish on February 20th, 2018
The Federal Circuit held a distribution agreement including transfer of title to the distributor and exclusivity in the United States for three years to be an “offer for sale” under the on-sale bar. In The Medicines Company v.… Read More

Patent That Survived Alice Is Not Obvious

by Charles Bieneman on February 8th, 2018
A little less than a year after finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159, directed to an inertial tracking system, were patent-eligible under the Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the… Read More

Patent Eligibility and Obviousness in a Covered Business Method Patent Review

by Mark St. Amour on January 12th, 2018
The limits of patent eligibility continue to be a major hurtle for patent owners whose patents are subject to Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM) at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In IBG LLC v. Trading… Read More

Low Bar for USPTO to Show Motivation to Combine

by Charles Bieneman on December 28th, 2017
A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates perils of trying to show that patent claims are non-obvious by arguing that references would not have been combined.  In Bosch Automotive Service Solutions. LLC v. Matal, No. 2015-1928 (F… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

Decision Points for US Brand Owners Pursuing a Trademark Portfolio in China
January 24, 2019 at 12:00 pm EST
We are delighted to kick off the first B2 IP Webinar of 2019 with David Hannon, Of Counsel at Bejin Bieneman, who will provide an outline of issues for decision by a US brand owner in its pursuit of trademark protection in China. Mr. Hannon will dis…Register

Subscribe

Categories

1 2 … 5 Last »