The Federal Circuit Last month at CORRESPONDING STRUCTURE FOR M EANS-PLUS- COURT “DIALS IN” ON PHONE PATENT FUNCTION CLAIM M UST BE “CLEARLY LINKED” Patent to mobile phone found invalid and not infringed. TO FUNCTION Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc. , No. 99-1562 Although disclosed structure may be capable of perform- (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 ing the claimed function, for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, the specification must clearly link or associate the SETTLEM ENT AGREEM ENT LEAVES PRECLUSION structure to the claimed function. Medtronic, Inc. v. ISSUE UNANSWERED Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., No. 00-1205 (Fed. Cir. Absent express reservation to pursue invalidity defense in Apr. 20, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 later litigation between parties in a settlement agreement, the right to do so depends on whether underlying cause SETTLEM ENT AGREEM ENT M OOTS APPEAL AND of action is different from previous action, which in turn PREVENTS VACATUR OF INVALIDITY J UDGM ENT depends upon differences or similarities between Settlement agreement between parties entered after previous products and redesigned products. Hallco final judgment but before appeal terminated case or Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Foster , No. 99-1458 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, controversy. Aqua Marine Supply v. Aim Machining, Inc. , 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 No. 00-1409 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 19, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 COURT “SEES THROUGH” PTO’S REJ ECTION OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION OF 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) DESIGN PATENT FOR TRANSPARENT OPTICAL DISK “RECHARGES” BATTERY M ONITORING PATENT Optical disk substrate that is transparent prior to 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) does not require proof of an completion does not render obvious design for actual combination of shipped components. Waymark transparent finished product. In re Haruna , Corp. v. Porta Sys. Corp. , No. 00-1327 (Fed. Cir. No. 00-1283 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 Apr. 6, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 NEW RESULT FROM KNOWN USE OF KNOWN M EM ORY M EANS” AND “DISPLAY M EANS” ARE NOT PROCESS IS NOT NOVEL M EANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIM ITATIONS Patentee cannot construe claims as limited to only those Optimal Recreation Solutions, LLP v. Leading Edge instances of practicing the claimed method that achieve Techs., Inc. , No. 00-1339 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 6, 2001) the stated result for purposes of validity, but as encompass - (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 ing all instances of carrying out the physical steps for pur- Washington, DC poses of infringement. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben 202-408-4000 Venue Labs., Inc. , No. 00-1304 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, BOARD IM PROPERLY RELIED ON FUNCTIONAL 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 DESCRIPTION OF, NOT STRUCTURE CORRESPONDING TO, M EANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIM ITATION COURT UPHOLDS J URY FINDINGS OF INFRINGEM ENT In re Beigel , No. 00-1442 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2001) Palo Alto AND NO INVALIDITY OF LIPOSUCTION PATENT (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 650-849-6600 Court reverses J M OL of invalidity for failure to disclose best mode and J M OL of noninfringement. M entor H/ S, Inc. v. Medical Device Alliance, Inc. , No. 99-1532 (Fed. COURT REVERSES SUM M ARY J UDGM ENT OF Cir. Apr. 9, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 NONINFRINGEM ENT Atlanta 404-653-6400 Somfy, S.A. v. Springs Window Fashion Div., Inc. , DAM AGES NOT ENHANCED EVEN THOUGH No. 00-1379 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2001) (nonprecedential INFRINGEM ENT WAS WILLFUL decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Trial court did not err in refusing to enhance damage Tokyo award after jury found willful infringement. Electro 011-813-3431-6943 Scientific Indus., Inc. v. General Scanning Inc. , No. COURT REVERSES DECISION DISM ISSING CLAIM THAT 99-1523 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 REEBOK WAS LIABLE FOR AVIA’S INFRINGEM ENT Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Reebok Int’l, Ltd. , ACCUSED SATELLITE IS “OUTSIDE THE ORBIT” OF THE No. 00-1367 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 25, 2001) (nonprecedential Brussels DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 011-322-646-0353 Amendments during prosecution prevent application of DOE to claim limitation. Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Space Sys./ Loral, Inc. , No. 00-1310 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISPENSING PATENT FOUND 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 UNPATENTABLE In re Tereschouk , No. 01-1112 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2001) INFRINGEM ENT CLAIM S FOR BOAT HULL PATENT DO (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 NOT “FLOAT” WITH COURT Court notes that DOE is not a talisman that entitles a pat- E DITE D BY VINCE KOVALICK entee to a trial on the basis of suspicion; it is a limited COURT AFFIRM S BOARD’S FINDING OF INVALIDITY remedy available in special circumstances. Schoell v. DURING INTERFERENCE PROCEEDING Regal M arine Indus., Inc. , No. 99-1511 Thompson v. Thompson , No. 00-1309 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 5, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 17, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2001) (nonprecedential decision) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 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 download the full text of each opinion by visiting our website at www.finnegan.com
Recommend
More recommend
