Federal Circuit Affirms Judgment Of Patent Claim Indefiniteness
On September 4, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion affirming a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware finding a patent claim invalid for indefiniteness. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al., —F.3d—(Fed. Cir. September 4, 2018). The CAFC ruled that the claim was invalid because it included a limitation that was entirely subjective and user-defined.CATEGORY: Section 112
Federal Circuit Reverses PTAB Rejection Of Design Patent Application
On August 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued an opinion reversing a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in which the PTAB had rejected a design patent application for indefiniteness. In re Ron Maatita, —F.3d—, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 20, 2018). The CAFC ruled that the PTAB had wrongly applied the indefiniteness standard in the context of a design patent claiming the design of the sole of an athletic shoe.
Federal Circuit Finds Sufficient Written Description In Species/Genus Disclosure Case
On March 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) ruled that a patent that discloses a technological species (“a fibre optics bundle”) provides written-description support for claims directed to a technological genus (“a light guide”). Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., appeal no. 2017-1389. The opinion presents the inverse of the situation in the Knowles case summarized in last week’s Litigation Weekly.
Federal Circuit Finds No Written Description In Genus/Species Disclosure Case
On March 1, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled that a patent that disclosed a technological genus (solder pads) did not provide written-description support for claims to one species within that genus (solder pads configured for connection via a solder reflow process), even though the record showed that the species was known to those of skill in the art at the time of the invention. Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., appeal no. 2016-2010.