Not All Patent Prosecution Disclaimers Are Broadly Construed

by Thomas Bejin on March 8th, 2017
Not all patent prosecution disclaimers are broadly construed; rather, in construing patent claim terms disclaimers must be closely aligned to actual arguments made during prosecution.  On March 3, 2017 the Federal Circuit in Tech… Read More

Detail Counts to Support Patent Damage Analysis

by Thomas Bejin on February 8th, 2017
In Yodlee v. Plaid Technology, No. 14-1445-LPS-CJB (D. Del. 2017), Judge Leonard Stark gave guidance on the boundaries of an admissible opinion for a reasonable royalty analysis in a patent case.  Yodlee v. Plaid involves a paten… Read More

Federal Circuit Says a Seemingly Subjective Claim Term Is Not Indefinite under 35 USC § 112

by Thomas Bejin on January 9th, 2017
The Federal Circuit has reversed the Northern District of Illinois’ conclusion that the phrase “visually negligible” renders a patent claim invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite.   Sonix Technology Co., LTD. v. Publ… Read More

Damages for Design Patent Infringement: What Is an "Article of Manufacture?"

by Thomas Bejin on December 7th, 2016
On December 6, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc.  The issue in Samsung v. Apple was whether 35 U.S.C. § 289 requires that design patent damages of a multi-comp… Read More

Investors in a Separate Corporation that Files an IPR Petition Are Not Real-Parties-in-Interest

by Thomas Bejin on April 2nd, 2014
Clouding IP is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,738,799 (the ‘799 patent).  The ‘799 patent is related to a method of file synchronization using a signature list.  Clouding asserted the ‘799 patent in a host of lawsuits,… Read More

Subscribe

Categories