March 6, 2014

Federal Circuit Decisions for Week Ending February 28, 2014

Cyberfone Systems, LLC. v. CNN Interactive Group, Inc., No. 2012-1673-1674 (February 26, 2014) (non-precedential) (3-0), U.S. Patent No. 8,019,060

Key point:

  • With respect to 35 USC § 101, for a machine to impose a meaningful limit, it must play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed.

Glaxosmithkline LLC. v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc., No. 2013-1593, -1594, -1595, -1598 (February 24, 2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 5,565,467

Key point:

  • Adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as structure, formula, chemical name, physical or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials.

Starhome GMBH v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2012-1694 (February 24, 2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent No. 6,920,487

Key point:

  • Judges are free to rely on dictionaries at any time during the process of construing claims so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents., Inc. v. SAP AG, No. 2011-1369 (February 24, 2014) (precedential) (2-1) Patent No. 6,947,903

Key points:

  • There is no requirement under §1404(a) that a transferee court have jurisdiction over the plaintiff or that there be sufficient minimum contacts with the plaintiff; there is only a requirement that the transferee court have jurisdiction over the defendants in the transferred complaint.
  • The burden is on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill would be unable to recognize supporting structures corresponding to claimed functions.

Related Team:

Chad Dougherty