The Central District of California held that claims directed to “‘an induction actuated container which is capable of automatically opening when a user is approaching, and automatically closing when the user has left’” are…
Read More
During a Markman patent claim construction proceeding, the Western District of Texas ruled multiple claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,284,203 invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the claims “improperly combine sys…
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 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
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
