August 3, 2016

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending July 15, 2016

IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corp., No. 2015-1754, July 11, 2016 (Non-precedential), Patent No. 7,043,751

Key point(s):

  • The broadest reasonable interpretation standard bars a patentee from limiting the scope of a claim to the preferred embodiment.

The Medicines Company v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2014-1469 and 2014-1504, July 11, 2016 (Precedential) (12-0) (en banc), Patent Nos. 7,582,727 and 7,598,343

Key point(s):

  • Contract manufacturing by a third party prior to the critical date, where the owner of the invention retains title to the manufactured goods, does not trigger the on-sale bar with respect to the goods because it is not a commercial sale of the invention.
  • Stockpiling of patented goods prior to the critical date does not trigger the on-sale bar.

Shortridge v. Foundation Construction Payroll Service, LLC., No. 2015-1898, July 13, 2016 (Non-precedential) Patent No. 8,774,933

Key point(s):

  • Limiting an abstract idea to one field of use does not make it patentable.
  • A method of calculating for a specific purpose, using a mathematical formula, is unpatentable.

Skyhawke Technologies, LLC, v. Deca International Corp., Nos. 2016-1325 and 2016-1326, (Order) Patent No. 7,118,948

Key point(s):

  • A PTAB decision affirming patentability based on a specific claim interpretation does not preclude the patentee from arguing a different claim construction in district court or on appeal.

Related Team:

Donald Verplancken

Partner