An important lesson for patent drafting – disclose and claim as much detail as you can about how the invention works, as opposed to simply what it does – falls out of a Federal Circuit panel’s split decision holding patent-i…
Read More
Even without the word “means,” claims can be interpreted as means-plus-function, as demonstrated by the Central District of California in a decision in Limestone Memory Systems v. Micron Technologies. The court interpreted the…
Read More
Whether a court holds a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C § 112 can depend on textual support in the body of the claim or in the patent specification. In Luminati Networks, Ltd. v. UAB Tesonet, no. 2:18-cv-299 (E.D. Tex. Aug…
Read More
In William Grecia v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2019) the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of invalidity for U.S. Patent 8,533,860 (the ‘860 patent) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 (indefinite). The invalidly determination for…
Read More
In a tentative ruling, a court held the claim term “processor” did not invoke means-plus-function construction and was not governed by 35 U.S.C. §112¶6. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. cv 18-9344-G…
Read More
The Southern District of Texas issued an interesting Markman ruling in ConocoPhillips v. In-Depth Geophysical. While the court construed most of the claim terms in ConocoPhillips’s favor, In-Depth managed to secure rulings that…
Read More
The Central District of California recently held a dependent patent claim indefinite for failing to “specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” under 35 U.S.C. § 112. BlackBerry Limited v. Facebook, Inc. et a…
Read More
Granting summary judgement to a defendant accused of patent infringement, a court held two patent claims including the term “control unit” indefinite, finding the description in the specification of a “tone control circuit…
Read More
In a Claim Construction Memorandum and Order, a court recently held a claim term indefinite for mixing an apparatus and a method. Wireless IP Holdings, L.P., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. No. 2:18-CV-28-JRG, (E.D. Texas…
Read More
Finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board failed to consider the entire record, the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for further analysis the Board’s decision affirming a rejection of claims for…
Read More
