-
Read more: In re Kostic
When considering whether a reissued patent broadens the scope of the original patent under 35 U.S.C. §251(d), the scope of the claims of the original patent are reviewed as written and without consideration of the subjective intent of the inventors.
-
Read more: Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
Connecting terms in a claim such as “operable to” and “configured to” do not automatically suggest that a term is structural when determining whether a claim term is in means-plus-function format.
-
Read more: In re PT Medisafe Technologies
The Milwaukee test is used to determine if a color mark is generic. The Milwaukee test asks: (1) What is the genus of goods or services at issue? (2) Is the color sought to be registered, or retained on the register, understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods and…
-
Read more: Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Applicant admitted prior art cannot form the basis of a ground for petition in an IPR because it is not a prior art patent or printed publication. However, applicant admitted prior art can be considered during IPRs for certain uses, such as determining the general knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art.
-
Read more: Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp.
A patent that claims the application of machine learning to a new data environment without disclosing improvements to the applied machine learning models is directed to an abstract idea and is patent ineligible under Section 101.
-
Read more: Sage Products, LLC v. Stewart
External evidence may be considered to help understand how a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret an alleged anticipatory reference.
-
Read more: In re SAP America, Inc.
When considering transfer of venue, a court should not give weight to a co-pending litigation involving the same patent when that litigation has been closed and involved no substantive filings at the time the motion to transfer is resolved.
-
Read more: Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
Statements made during prosecution of a patent application are not relevant to the interpretation of the claims of a related patent that was issued before the later-filed patent application.
Want updates when we have new case summaries? Enter your email below to subscribe!
Federal Circuit Precedential 