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 di…
Read More
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 invalida…
Read More
In Unicorn Global Inc. v. Golab, Inc. No. 3:19-CV-0754-N (N.D. Tex. May 26, 2020), the Northern District of Texas construed several disputed terms of U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 and U.S. Patent No. 9,452,802, and found claims to be…
Read More
The District Court for the Northern District of California recently issued a claim construction order in Zoho Corporation v. Sentius International, LLC, finding that the claim limitation “means for compiling the source material…
Read More
In its second time considering a patent, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s ruling on noninfringement but overturned its ruling of lack of enablement in McRO v. Bandai Namco. The decision rested on the claim constru…
Read More
The Eastern District of Texas held that the only asserted claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,452,515 was indefinite because “the term ‘[means] for encoding these labels in a random order’” (alterations in original) invokes 35 USC…
Read More
In Kitsch LLC v. Deejayzoo, LLC (Case No. LA CV19-02556 JAK (RAOx)) the Central District of California interpreted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,021,930 that included terms of degree as being sufficiently definite under 35 U.S.C. …
Read More
The Eastern District of Texas recently issued a claim construction ruling with a couple interesting rulings on indefiniteness in the case of Semcon IP v. Louis Vuitton and TCT Mobile (April 29, 2020).
TCT Mobile is a mobile commun…
Read More
Claims of five patents directed to toggling between television and Internet content have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on indefiniteness of claim terms directed to content “overlays” on a display screen. TV…
Read More
During a Markman hearing, the Eastern District of Texas ruled claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,865,920 invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because “[t]here is no antecedent reference to ‘storage locations’ or ‘i…
Read More
