“Minimal Redundancy” Makes Patent Claim Indefinite under § 112

The phrase “minimal redundancy” in a patent claim was indefinite under 35 USC § 112 where the patent specification inconsistently described levels of redundancy achieved by its system.  Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., No. 2017-1437… Read More

Written Description Inapplicable to Doctrine of Equivalents

The written description requirement does not extend to equivalents asserted under the doctrine of equivalents, according to a recent order in the District of Delaware. The district judge in Sprint v. Cox resolved dueling summary… Read More

Strategies for Functional Patent Claims

The Federal Circuit’s decision to weaken the presumption against interpreting patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (or 112, sixth paragraph), in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, in 2015, highlighted the challenges that funct… Read More

PTAB: Filled May Be Indefinite, Unfilled Is Adequately Described

Tinnus Enterprises, LLC (“Tinnus”), owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,527,612 B2 (“the ‘612 patent”) recently suffered a setback when the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board ordered institution of a post-grant review of the… Read More

Fed. Cir: Patent Claim Not Indefinite System/Method Hybrid

A patent claim directed to a system comprising multiple elements including a “CRM software application” that according to the claim “presents,” “receives,” and “generates” various data was not indefinite under 35 U… Read More

Knowledge of Skilled Artisan Can Beat Patent Indefiniteness

Knowledge of a person of skill in the art was recently used to revive claims that had earlier been found indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.  Delaware District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark granted a motion for reargument on the is… Read More

“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 a definite term under §112, second paragraph, in the Markman order in Ecoservices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (CDCA; Docket CV 16-01824-… 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

Upcoming Webinar

Peter Keros of Bejin Bieneman PLC will cover approaches to responding to Office Actions during patent prosecution. Topics discussed will include: Interviews with Examiners Why to interview with Examiners When in prosecution can you have an intervie…Register