Category: 12 – December
-
IBM v. Zillow Group, Inc.
Anticipation analysis can consider how a skilled artisan would interpret the teachings of a prior art reference in deciding whether a claim limitation is disclosed.
-
Coda Development S.R.O. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
A trade secret description that only lists the functions of a finished product, without disclosing the underlying knowledge needed to develop it, is not sufficiently definite. Likewise, a mere list of components without disclosure of the design or development is insufficient to define a trade secret.
-
Adnexus Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
At the motion‑to‑dismiss stage, a court may construe claim terms when the parties are given proper notice and a chance to argue their positions. Absent that process, the court must apply the construction advanced by the non‑moving party if a term’s meaning is uncertain.
-
Seagen Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd.
Disclosure of a broad genus does not provide adequate written description for a narrower subgenus or species unless the specification includes reasonably specific support showing possession of that narrower scope.
-
In re Gesture Technology Partners, LLC
The estoppel provision of Section 315(e)(1) does not apply to ex parte reexaminations that were brought before a final written decision was issued in a concurrent IPR. The Patent Office has jurisdiction over ex parte reexaminations concerning expired patents.