A free legal research tool on substantive U.S. utility patent law with more than 5K links to Fed. Cir. and S. Ct. decisions, updated frequently by @Klarquist
Oregon
Joined July 2021
- Tweets478
- Following836
- Followers836
- Likes381
What platforms alternative to Twitter are patent attorneys and agents using? Inquiring for a friend.
1
2
240
This day in U.S. patent law: Dana-Farber (Fed. Cir. 07/14/20) (researchers qualified as joint inventors even though their contribution was made public before a colleague's conception of entire claimed invention, which invention was non-obvious over that prior art contribution).
This day in U.S. patent law: “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Phillips (Fed. Cir. 07/12/05) (en banc)
This day in U.S. patent law: “Without additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.” Digitech (Fed. Cir. 07/11/14)
“[A] secret, purposely hidden use of a patented process more than one year before an applicant’s filing date precludes the issuance of the patent when it is the applicant who so used the claimed invention and did so to his commercial advantage.” Woodland (Fed. Cir. 07/10/98)
This day in U.S. patent law: [Klarquist case] Netscape (Konrad) (Fed. Cir. 07/09/02) (aff’g Summ J. invalidity for public use where inventor demonstrated prototype to others without expectation of confidentiality).
81
This day in U.S. patent law: When construing patent claims, “we strive to capture the scope of the actual invention, rather than ... allow the claim language to become divorced from what the specification conveys is the invention.” Retractable Tech. (Fed. Cir. 07/08/11).
1
117
This day in U.S. pat. law: Oops. Retractable (Fed. Cir. 07/07/14) (where Fed. Cir. rev’d infringement on 1 of 2 products jury found infringing, but not remanded for new trial on damages, failure to have appealed damages award precluded, under mandate rule, reduction of damages).
1
116
Developments since March on The end of Chevron deference, Silence in a Spec. speaks volumes, The more you claim the more you must explain, Parallel proceedings in D. Ct. and PTAB, Value of an Octane Fitness letter, and Apportionment mandate muddied: klarquist.com/patent-defense…
1
82
Happy 10th Nautilus. Ambiguous patent claims chill innovation. 10 years ago today, the S. Ct. rejected the Fed. Cir. rule that so long as a patent claim were "amenable to construction" and not "insolubly ambiguous" it was clear enough. Klarquist argued the case for Nautilus.
6
193
8 leap years ago: Eon (Fed. Cir. 02/29/16) (2-1) (“only meaning that matters in claim construction is the meaning in the context of the patent”; criticizing dissent’s acontextual reliance on dictionaries)
195
At noon Pacific, Thurs. Jan. 11, via Zoom, we'll present “Patent Defenses Update,” including quizzes + unified theory of U.S. utility patent law. To attend, email [email protected] with contact info., + state and bar number for CLE credit. See linkedin.com/posts/klarquist…
2
177
Also, vacating jury damages award of $1.5 Billion, where expert’s reasonable royalty calculation was based in part on performance of non-infringing functionality
VLSI v Intel 12/4 important #FedCir doctrine of equivalents case reversing jury infrgmt verdict $675M. DOE = exception not rule. V's expert testimony re integrated circut engineer's "design choice" wasn't "remotely sufficient," particularized evidence of substantially same "way."
Judge Stark in Nov. 16 dissent: "Determining what a person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the claims in the context of the patent, would understand to be the scope of the claims is frequently entirely contestable, with reasonable (even strong) arguments on both sides."
Patent law loves misnomers. Consider "means-plus-function." Suggests something recites a function and the means for performing. But in fact it applies when element recites function without a particular means. So should be "function-without-means". Granted, not a huge problem : )
Patent claim must be particular (recite "how") and proportional to advance disclosed. That's it and that's all.
Alice: we quote the abstract idea found by Fed. Cir. in each of its 149 post-Alice opinions (not R. 36 affirmances) finding claims ineligible, here: klarquist.com/patent-defense…
4 yrs. ago: Hope is not enough, for obviousness. OSI Pharm. (Fed. Cir. 10/04/19) (“hope that a potentially promising drug will treat a particular cancer is not enough to create a reasonable expectation of success in a highly unpredictable art such as this.”)
196