April 5, 2013

Federal Circuit Decisions for Week Ending December 14, 2012

Stored Value Solutions, Inc. v Card Activation Technologies, Inc., No. 09-CV-0495 (December 10, 2012) (nonprecedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,032,859 and 5,278,752

Key point:

  • A method claim reciting a specific number of steps must be disclosed in the specification, to convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art that the patentee was in possession of the invention, as teaching a method that includes all of those steps.

Fluor Tec, Corp. v Kappos, No. 2012-1295 (December 11, 2012) (nonprecedential) U.S. Patent No. 6,712,880 and International Patent Publication No. WO 02/14763 (“Mak application”)

Key point:

  • One skilled in the art would have no motivation to modify a prior art reference to include a claimed element, when the prior art reference explicitly disclaims the element in the specification and drawings.

Kingpak Tech, Inc. v. Kappos, No. 2012-1295 (December 12, 2012) (nonprecedential) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,656,008 and 6,323,064

Key point:

  • Appellant must offer evidence of why a prior art reference, contrary to the prior art reference’s plain disclosure, fails to teach a claimed element.

Brooks v. Dunlop Mfg. Inc., No. 2012-1164 (December 13, 2012) (precedential) (3-0)

Key point:

  • The retroactive elimination of the qui tam provision of § 292(b) is not a violation of the Due Process Clause, Takings Clause, or Intellectual Property Clause of the Constitution.

OSRAM SYLVANIA, Inc. v. American Induction Technologies, Inc., No. 2012-1091, -1135 (December 13, 2012) (precedential) (3-0) U.S. Patent Nos. 5,834,905 and 3,987,334

Key point:

  • A trial court must provide its analysis and grounds for entering judgment somewhere in the record, particularly where there is evidence in the record supporting the non-movant’s position.

AstraZeneca UK Ltd., IPR v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. 2010-1460, -1461, -1462, -1463, -1464, -1465, -1466, -1467, -1468, -1469, -1470, -1471, -1472, -1473 (December 14, 2012) (precedential) (2-1) U.S. Patent Nos. 37,314 and 5,260,440

Key point:

  • The deceptive intent requirement in the reissue statute does not require less rigorous proof than the deceptive intent requirement for inequitable conduct.

Related Team: