May 7, 2018
In reviewing a rejection of claims as being obvious, the Board’s findings need not be overturned just because there are different possible and reasonable views of the prior art’s teachings.
Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending April 13, 2018
Maxon, LLC v. Funai Corporation, Case No. 2017-2139 (April 9, 2018) (non-precedential) Patent Nos. 8,989,160; 7,489,671; 7,486,649; and 7,171,194
Key point(s):
- Reciting the application of generic computer elements for their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions does not transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter under §101.
Baker v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2017-2357 (April 9, 2018) (non-precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 5,486,001
Key point(s):
- The meaning of a claim can be limited by statements during prosecution that make clear and unmistakable disavowals of scope.
Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l. Ltd., Case Nos. 2016-2707, 2016-2708 (April 13, 2018) (Precedential) (2-1)
Key Points:
- Claims of induced infringement under the Hatch Waxman Act require only that a drug would infringe if put on the market and do not require proof of actual direct infringement.
Merck & Cie, Case No. 2017-1960 (April 11, 2018) (non-precedential) Application No. 12/688,034
Key Points: