Last The Federal Circuit month at DOES WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT MERITS DO NOT SUPPORT PRELIMINARY ENCOMPASS AN “OMITTED ELEMENTS TEST”? INJ UNCTION Federal Circuit avoids issue but reverses Claim construction weakens patentees’ likelihood summary judgment of invalidity based on 35 of success on infringement claim. Microchip Tech., U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp. , Inc. v. Scenix Semiconductor, Inc. , No. 99-1300 No. 98-1502 (Fed. Cir. J une 5, 2000)........................1 (Fed. Cir. J une 16, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) ...................................................................6 COURT INTERPRETS “OFFER FOR SALE” UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) FAILURE TO RENEW J MOL MOTION Offer for sale requires a manifestation of willingness to “CONVOLUTES” APPEAL enter a bargain so made as to justify another person Failure to renew J MOL motion after jury verdict in understanding that assent to the bargain is invited limits Federal Circuit’s scope of review. TA and will conclude it. Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Instruments, Inc. v. Perkin-E lmer Corp. , No. Corp. , No. 99-1275 (Fed. Cir. J une 13, 2000) ...........1 99-1358 (Fed. Cir. J une 1, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) ...................................................................7 OFFERS TO SELL DO NOT SUPPORT DAMAGES AWARD INFRINGEMENT “HANGS” ON CLAIM Sale of devices that may practice patented method CONSTRUCTION FOR EYEGLASS HANGER cannot infringe without proof of direct infringement. PATENTS ng’g Corp. , No. 99-1064 Prosecution history leads Federal Circuit to different E mbrex, Inc. v. Service E (Fed. Cir. J une 28, 2000)...........................................2 claim construction than district court. Magnivision, Inc. v. Bonneau Co. , No. 99-1093 (Fed. Cir. J une 15, UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS BY EXPERT DO NOT 2000) (nonprecedential decision) .............................7 CREATE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT E xpert’s conclusion that a claim term is found in SOIL SAMPLER PATENT NOT INFRINGED Washington, DC accused device, with no supporting reason, does not Accused drilling device does not perform the same 202-408-4000 prevent summary judgment of noninfringement. or similar function to that claimed. Koenig v. F ugro- Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Ltd. , McClelland (Southwest), Inc. , No. 99-1252 (Fed. Cir. No. 99-1400 (Fed. Cir. J une 16, 2000) ......................3 J une 2, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) .................8 Palo Alto 650-849-6600 FEDERAL CIRCUIT REVERSES INVALIDITY BASED MISSING STEP NEGATES EQUIVALENCE ON BEST MODE No equivalence where claims require two steps, but To establish best mode violation, party asserting accused process includes only one. Wooster Brush invalidity must show that asserted best mode relates Co. v. Newell Operating Co. , No. 99-1393 (Fed. Cir. Atlanta directly to claimed invention. Northern Telecom J une 9, 2000) (nonprecedential decision) .................9 404-653-6400 Ltd. v. Samsung E lecs. Co. , No. 99-1208 (Fed. Cir. J une 13, 2000)..........................................................4 COURT “REDRAWS” LOWER COURT’S RULINGS ON Tokyo ERROR IN “INVENTORSHIP” INSTRUCTION “CAD” PATENT 011-813-3431-6943 PROVES HARMLESS Court’s de novo claim construction leaves some Proof of inventorship, when considering priority of claims invalid on summary judgment, but leaves invention of commonly claimed subject matter in questions of fact on others. American Imaging Brussels issued patents, requires only preponderance of Servs., Inc. v. Intergraph Corp. , No. 99-1485 (Fed. 011-322-646-0353 evidence. E uron Co. , Cir. J une 12, 2000)(nonprecedential decision) ........10 nviron Prods., Inc. v. F No. 99-1218 (Fed. Cir. J une 12, 2000) ......................5 COURT CONSTRUES CLAIMS NARROWLY IN VIEW AMENDMENT TO CLAIMS RESTRICTS RANGE OF SOLE DISCLOSED EMBODIMENT LIMITATION Disclosure that other embodiments are possible Although accused device falls within disclosed does not broaden scope of limitation narrowed by EDITED BY VINCE KOVALICK range, it avoids significantly narrower claimed the claim language itself. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Medtronic, range. E lekta Instrument S.A. v. O.U.R. Scientific Inc. , No. 99-1475 (Fed. Cir. J une 29, 2000) Int’l, Inc. , No. 99-1556 (Fed. Cir. J une 1, 2000) ........5 (nonprecedential decision)......................................10 This publication brings you a synopsis of patent cases decided last m onth by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit based on slip opinions received from the court. You can review and dow nload t he full t ext of each opinion by visit ing our Web sit e ( www.finnegan.com ).
Recommend
More recommend
