Category: 01 – January
-
Range of Motion Products, LLC v. Armaid Company Inc.
The drawings of a design patent do not delineate between the functional and ornamental aspects of the claimed design. The existence of alternative designs is not dispositive of functionality for features of a claimed design.
-
Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC
Method claims ordinarily do not require the recited steps to be performed in a specific order unless inherent logical or functional dependencies in the claim language compel a particular sequence.
-
US Patent No. 7,679,637 LLC v. Google LLC
Claims directed to abstract ideas that rely on results‑oriented language, without explaining how the results are achieved or identifying any specific technological improvement, are patent‑ineligible.
-
Barry v. DePuy Synthes Companies
If an expert’s application of a court’s claim construction does not contradict that construction, the issue goes to weight, not admissibility, and should be left to the jury. Methodological deficiencies in a survey similarly bear on weight, not admissibility.