This portion of the blog is directed towards tips that may help patent attorneys in prosecution.

ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE INC.

This case is the latest case in the debate regarding if software related patents are eligible subject matter under the Federal Circuit. In this case, Accenture is the holder of U.S. patent number 7,013,284, which is directed towards systems that generate and organize insurance-related tasks. The claims in the ‘284 patent include claims with various [...]

By | 2013-09-07T18:53:33+00:00 September 7th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES v. GUIDEWIRE SOFTWARE INC.

TRADING TECHNOLOGIES V. OPEN E CRY – Claim Construction v Invalidity

The lesson to be learned in this case is that claim construction and invalidity based on the written description are separate issues that have their own tests, and serve different purposes. In this case, Trading Technologies owns a family of patents that are related to presenting interfaces to users associated with commodities exchanges, think stock [...]

By | 2013-09-05T10:59:32+00:00 September 5th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on TRADING TECHNOLOGIES V. OPEN E CRY – Claim Construction v Invalidity

PLANTRONICS, INC. V. ALIPH, INC. And ALIPHCOM, INC

Patent attorneys beware how you respond to restriction requirements because your response may cause patent prosecution estoppel. PATENT ATTORNEY OVERVIEW In this case, Plantronics filed suit against Aliph and Alipcom (collectively “Aliph”) alleging that Aliph infringed on US Patent No. 5,712,453. The ‘453 patent is directed to concha-style headsets for transmitting received sounds to the [...]

By | 2013-07-31T19:27:30+00:00 July 31st, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on PLANTRONICS, INC. V. ALIPH, INC. And ALIPHCOM, INC

IN RE BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

OVERVIEW:  In this case, Bimeda appeals a decision from the USPTO board of patent appeals and interferences, which affirmed the examiner’s rejection of the claims of US Patent No 6,506,400 for not meeting the requirements under 35 USC 112. The ‘400 patent discuses methods for preventing the inflammation of udder tissues in cows. The ‘400 [...]

By | 2013-07-26T13:27:22+00:00 July 26th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on IN RE BIMEDA RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

NOVOZYMES A/S v. DUPONT NUTRITION BIOSCIENCES

OVERVIEW: Novozymes v. Dupont is a recent patent case that discusses if claimed subject matter in a continuation meets the requirements of 35 USC 112 if the continuation’s claimed limitations are not literally recited in the new claims. Specifically, this case discusses who “one of ordinary skilled in the art” based on technology areas. CASE [...]

By | 2013-07-22T14:07:13+00:00 July 22nd, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on NOVOZYMES A/S v. DUPONT NUTRITION BIOSCIENCES

SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. REA

OVERVIEW: This case is related to a review of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, where the Court of Appeals reversed the Board’s decision that the patent claims would have been unobvious in view of the prior art. Synthes owns the US Patent No. 7,128,744, which is directed to a system for using plates [...]

By | 2013-07-09T20:32:54+00:00 July 9th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on SMITH & NEPHEW, INC. v. REA

Initial Review of a Bitcoin related published Patent 2013/0166455

What is a bitcoin? A bitcoin is a form of electronic currency that can be transferred through a computer or smartphone without an intermediate bank or financial institution.  A user can have a digital wallet to receive and/or transfer bitcoins, where the accounts and/or bitcoins are encrypted. When purchasing a bitcoin, a purchaser receives a [...]

By | 2013-07-03T14:54:46+00:00 July 3rd, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on Initial Review of a Bitcoin related published Patent 2013/0166455

FRESENIUS USA, INC. v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC

OVERVIEW: This is an interesting case that deals with Res judicata or claim preclusion. In this case, damages were being decided after the case appealed at the federal circuit while claims of a patent were being invalidated at the USPTO. Appellant Fresenius brought a declaratory judgment action against Baxter alleging claims 26-31 of US Patent [...]

By | 2013-07-02T14:52:11+00:00 July 2nd, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on FRESENIUS USA, INC. v. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC

CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER

OVERVIEW: This case involves Convolve, Inc (Convolve) appealing the decision of the United State District Court that granted summary judgment in favor of Compaq Computer Corp and Seagate technology, that Compaq and Seagate did not misappropriate trade secrets, claims of patent number 6,314,473 and ‘4,916,635 assigned to Convolve were invalid, and that Compaq and Seagate [...]

By | 2013-07-01T18:36:21+00:00 July 1st, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on CONVOLVE v. COMPAQ COMPUTER

What Is Induced Infringement In Patent Law?

Induced infringement is a form of secondary liability for patent infringement, where a person does not commit direct infringement but creates or sells a product with advertising or instructions that will cause the consumers of the products to act in direct infringement. Statutory language of induced infringement can be found in 35 USC 271(b). To [...]

By | 2013-06-30T20:17:23+00:00 June 30th, 2013|Patent Attorney Takeaways|Comments Off on What Is Induced Infringement In Patent Law?