Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending November 13, 2015
Imaginal Systematic, LLC, v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., No. 2014-1845 (November 10, 2015) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 7,222,402
- A preferred embodiment does not express a manifest exclusion or restriction as it pertains to the meaning of the recited phrase “without a vision guidance system.”
Momenta Pharm., Inc., v. Teva Pharm., Inc., Nos. 2014-1274, 2014-1277, 2014-1276, 2014-1278 (November 10, 2015) (Precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 7,575,886
- Testing whether an already-synthesized drug possesses certain qualities, without any assertions that the samples on which tests are performed are themselves incorporated into the finished product
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Nos. 2014-1634, 2014-1635 (November 10, 2015) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,284,770
- Insubstantial differences between a later-claimed species of an earlier disclosed genus, in addition to a lack of a nexus between the asserted secondary consideration and the non-obviousness of the claimed invention, render the species patent obvious.
Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, v. Oracle Corporation, No. 2015-1242 (November 12, 2015) (Nonprecedential) Patent No. 5,818,836
- U.S.C. § 314(d) prohibits the Federal Circuit from reviewing the PTAB’s determination to initiate an IPR proceeding based on the PTAB’s assessment of the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC, v. X-Body Equipment, Inc., No. 2014-1829 (November 12, 2015) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 8,061,950
- Disregarding a portion of patented claim elements, while attempting to establish that an accused device functions in substantially the same way as the claimed invention, does not satisfy a patentee’s burden to establish equivalence.
Cubist Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2015-1197, 2015-1204, 2015-1259 (November 12, 2015) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. RE39,071, 6,852,689, 6,468,967, 8,058,238, 8,129,342
- A certificate of correction may be issued to change the name of a compound from the L- isomer of asparagine to the D-isomer of asparagine in a structural diagram when the specification makes clear that the patent claimed the D-isomer of asparagine.
Inphi Corporation, v. Netlist, Inc., No. 2015-1179 (November 13, 2015) (Precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 7,532,537
- Properly describing alternative features without articulating advantages or disadvantages of each feature can constitute a “reason to exclude” under the standard articulated in Santarus.