Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial & Appeal Board’s non-obviousness determination, finding that the Board erred in determining that an operating manual did not qualify as printed...more
Claim terms are usually given their ordinary meaning in light of the intrinsic evidence, but what if the ordinary meaning of two claim terms presents an obvious contradiction? That is the issue that the Federal Circuit will...more
In Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. TA Instruments-Waters LLC, the Federal Circuit addressed the proper construction of the claim term “pipette guiding mechanism.” Specifically, the Federal Circuit found the plain and ordinary...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the limitation “a pH of 13 or higher” could not be construed using the asserted patents’ intrinsic evidence and therefore remanded to the district court with...more
Allgenesis Biotherapeutics Inc. v. Cloudbreak Therapeutics, LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1706 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit dismissed appellant Allgenesis’s appeal of an inter...more
This case addresses the validity of two patents asserted against wireless communications technologies. In particular, this case discusses claim construction and post-issuance claim amendments that broaden the scope of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reiterated that intrinsic evidence trumps extrinsic evidence in determining the meaning of claim terms. Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc. et al., Case Nos. 21-2263; -2264;...more
Lite-Netics, LLC v. Nu Tsai Capital LLC, Appeal No. 2023-1146 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2023) In an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, the Federal Circuit addressed whether the district court...more
If you think claim construction is more fun than watching paint peel, then you’re probably a patent lawyer. And what’s more fun than claim construction? Claim construction with an indefiniteness challenge, as happened in this...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the tension between the intrinsic and extrinsic record in claim construction, holding that the intrinsic record should be relied on first. The Court therefore reversed...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned a district court determination that the claim terms “resilient” and “pliable” were indefinite. The Federal Circuit found that the claims, while broad, were...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued decisions in two separate inter partes reviews (IPRs), one involving a patent related to radio frequency communication systems and the other involving a patent related to...more
Vacating a stipulated infringement judgment based on an incorrect claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit explained that it is improper to isolate claim language from the intrinsic evidence when...more
While there may have been no public tricks or treats from the Federal Circuit last week, the Court still managed to issue a range of precedential and non-precedential decisions. Below we provide our usual weekly statistics...more
In Seabed Geosolutions (US) Inc. v. Magseis FF LLC, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded an inter partes review decision for the Patent Owner. The Court held that the Patent Trial and Review Board failed to perform the...more
The PTAB Strategies and Insights newsletter provides timely updates and insights into how best to handle proceedings at the USPTO. It is designed to increase return on investment for all stakeholders looking at the entire...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a final written decision of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) based on its finding that the Board erred in its ultimate claim construction by relying on extrinsic...more
Below we provide our usual weekly statistics and our case of the week—our highly subjective selection based on whatever case piqued our interest. Precedential opinions: 1 - v Non-precedential opinions: 4 - Rule 36: 3...more
In reviewing whether the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) correctly interpreted the meaning of “intercepting” in the context of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal...more
In deciding whether use of the term “passive link” to define a connection between a computer terminal and a fax machine rendered a patent claim indefinite, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...more
SIMO HOLDINGS INC. v. HONG KONG UCLOUDLINK NETWORK - Before O’Malley, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Summary: A claim construction that...more
Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the...more
Interferences were rendered unnecessary with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act in 2011, but they linger in disputes between patents and applications claiming priority to applications filed before the change...more
CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. v. UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING RESEARCH - Before Newman, Lourie, and Schall. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: Intrinsic evidence is sufficient support for claim construction in an...more