July 11, 2017

Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending June 23, 2017

Cole Kepro Int’l., Inc. v. VSR Ind., Inc., No. 2016-2258, (June 19, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,860,814

Key point(s):

  • A reference teaches away from an applicant’s claim when a person of ordinary skill would bediscouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led away from the pathtaken by the applicant.
  • A license, as evidence of commercial success accompanying a patent claim, is weakened where thelicense conveys rights beyond the claim and/or states the license is in settlement of litigation, andthe license contains no other nexus to the claim.

Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. No. 2016-2170, 2221, (June 19, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 8,798,522

Key point(s):

  • Specific personal jurisdiction cannot be established in a patent infringement case by cumulative evidence of activities prior to issuance of the patent, forum choice clauses in agreements unrelated to the infringement claim, functionality in a commercial web site that allows a user to select a state from a list, or mass advertisements.

Storer v. Clark, No’s. 2015-1802, (June 21, 2017) (Precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent No. 7,608,600

Key point(s):

  • Ordinary skill in the art cannot be relied upon to enable a patent claim.

Nanktwest, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1794, (June 23, 2017) (Precedential) (2-1)

Key point(s):

  • In an action under 35 U.S.C. § 145, the applicant for patent must pay all expenses of the action, including USPTO attorney and expert fees.

Chaffin v. Braden, No. 2016-2572, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,932,912

Key point(s):

  • Claim interpretation inconsistent with intrinsic evidence and not litigated is not an appropriate basis for summary judgment of non-infringement.

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Straight Path IP Group, Inc., No. 2016-2004, 8, 9, 19-21, 2112-14, 2182-84, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,108,704; 6,009,469; 6,131,121

Key point(s):

  • References describing a point-to-point communication system that queries a server for registered processes, without determining whether those processes are connected to the server at the time of the query, did not invalidate claims requiring a query for processes connected to the server at the time of the query.

Prism Techs., Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2016-2031, 2016-2049, (June 23, 2017) (Non-precedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155

Key points:

  • A claim to a computer-implemented method is ineligible for patenting if the claim is directed tothe abstract idea of controlling access to protected resources and recites no novel featuresregarding how that access is controlled.

Related Team: