Federal Circuit Court Decisions For Week Ending September 23, 2016
COX Communication Inc. v. Sprint Communication Company, No. 2016-1013 (September 23, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,452,932, 6,463,052, 6,633,561, 7,286,561, 6,298,064, 6,473,429
- The term “processing system” is not indefinite if it does not discernably alter the scope of the claims.
- Claims are not per se indefinite merely because they contain functional language.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV LLC, No. 2015-1845, 2015-1846, 2015-1847, 2015-1848, (September 23, 2016) (precedential) (3-0), Patents No. 7,970,379
- Merely limiting the field of use of an abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLV v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 2015-2080, (September 23, 2016) (precedential) (3-0), Patents No. 8,688,085
- In addressing the first step of a § 101 inquiry it is often helpful to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or merely adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices.
Server Technology, Inc. v. American Power Conversion, No. 2015-1605, (September 23, 2016) (precedential) (3-0), Patents Nos. 7,702,771 and 7,043,543
- The term “associated with” merely requires commonality, not physical connection.
- The use of the word “comprising” is open ended and indicates that the claim must have all of the claimed elements, but not that all the elements must be contained in a single enclosure.
Roche Diagnostics Operations v. Lifescan Inc., No. 2015-1356 (September 22, 2016) (non- precedential), Patent Nos. 7,276,146 and 7,276,147
- A term’s ordinary meaning is its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.
- A specification may define claim terms expressly or by implication.
WesternGeco LLC. v. ION Geophysical Corp, No. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, 2014-1526 (September 21, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent Nos. 6,691,038, 7,080,607, and 7,293,520
- The Supreme Court’s decision in Halo rejected an objective prong to establish willfulness for enhanced damages.
Yedda Research and Development v. Abbott GMBH & Co. KG., No. 2015-1662, (September 20, 2016) (precedential) (3-0), Patents No. 5,344,915
- One avenue of review of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (PTAB) is to the district court, rather than a direct appeal to the Federal Circuit.
In re Lemay, No. 2015-1973 (September 19, 2016) (non-precedential), Patent Application No. 11/968,067
- When combining references under a § 103 rejection, antecedent basis for claim terms must be taken into account.
ClassCo, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., No. 2015-1853 (September 22, 2016) (Precedential) (3-0) PTAB- Inter Partes Review No. 95/002,109
- KSR does not require combined references to have the same function.
Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., Nos. 2015-1726, 2015-1727 (September 23, 2016) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 7,670,536
- The determination as to whether to institute inter partes review is typically non appealable and an appeal on the basis of assignor estoppel is not an exception to the rule