• Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Invalidation of Patents Asserted Against Apple

    On appeal to the Federal Circuit, Zeroclick argued that the district court erred in construing those two terms as means-plus-function limitations, an argument with which the Federal Circuit panel agreed. “Neither of the limitations at issue uses the word ‘means,’” Circuit Judge Hughes writes in his majority opinion. “Presumptively, therefore, [Section 112(f)] does not apply to the limitations.” Although Apple argued in the district court that the claims must be construed under Section 112(f),…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit confirms validity of patent for UCB’s Vimpat®

    Appellants were generic drug manufacturers who filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDAs”), seeking approval for generic versions of Vimpat®. As a result, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the asserted claims were not invalid.

    The post Federal Circuit confirms validity of patent for UCB’s Vimpat® appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Visual Land, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2018)

    Signal Processing Claims Found to be Patent Eligible By Joseph Herndon — In the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Hybrid Audio, LLC sued Visual Land, Inc. for patent infringement with respect to audio signal processing technology used in conjunction with MP3 technologies. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the patent was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Despite seemingly very broad claims, the Court found that it was clear from the asserted patent that the claims were directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, and thus, were patent eligible. The patent…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 均一



    $$ This allows maximum confidence in the uniformity of the field. / これによって、電界の均一性に対する信頼性は最大…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Corporate Duty to Disclose?

    Query: Now that patent applications are being filed by “applicants” rather than the inventors themselves, will those applicants (i.e., corporate owners) now be bound by the duty of disclosure?

    37 C.F.R. 1.56:

    (a) . . . Each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in this section. . . .

    (c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are:
    (1) Each inventor named in the application;
    (2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and
    (3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, the applicant, an assignee, or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.

    If we are strictly following the rule, the basic question is whether a corporate owner counts as a “person” under (c)(3).

    Continue reading Corporate Duty to Disclose? at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Inside Views: In Defense Of Fair Use

    Copyright law, to be sustainable, calls for a balance. Under copyright law, creators receive exclusive rights to allow or prevent others from making copies of their works for a limited time as an incentive to create. Users receive benefits from the results of the creator’s labor, perhaps through watching, reading or listening to those results. Users may also benefit pursuant to a license to use the works in other ways. Eventually the works fall into the public domain, allowing further reuse by everyone. Recent litigation involving a graffiti artist and a purveyor of sportswear shows how sometimes a flexible mechanism for balancing the copyright entitlements of creators and users makes sense, writes Roy Kaufman.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The 10 millionth numbered US patent to issue on 5 June 2018?

    A June 4, 2018 post on a Ford patent application includes the text:

    Oh, also, I promised my Patent Office pal I’d mention this:
    Tomorrow the U.S. Patent Office is expecting to issue its 10 millionth patent!
    Holy shit, right? We’ll comb through and find some of the best automotive-related ones at some point.

    See post titled –Ford Patents An Idea That’s Been Around A Long Time But Is Still A Good Idea –


    The number of the last patent as of 5 June 2018 seems to be
    9,992,920 [Method for accurate population of a circuit carrier to ZKW GROUP GMBH ], so
    we are short of US 10,000,000.

    The lowest number on 5 June 2018 was 9,986,671, suggesting issuance of 6249 utility patents
    on 5 June 2018.

    Continue Reading ...
  • From Around the Blogs: Injunctions in the U.K., China, and India; Confidentiality and FRAND in Germany

    1.  On EPLaw this morning, Rachel Mumby and Ben Millson published a post titled UK–Regeneron v. Kymab and Novo Nordisk, discussing a recent decision of the Court of Appeal for England and Wales regarding the scope of an order for injunctive and other relief (copy of opinion here).  The order, among other things,  (1) exempts the defendants from delivering up a quantity of the infringing products (mice, cells, antibodies) that will be used for purposes exempted from liability under U.K. law; and (2) stays the injunction and delivery up pending appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court, on the ground that Kymab faces the risk of irreparable harm that outweighs the harm faced by Regeneron (see paras. 45-62 of the opinion).  Interesting post and opinion, particularly in light of my blog post last Monday on stays of injunction in the U.K.

    Also on EPLaw, Alexander Haertel and Jonas Block last week published a post titled DE–Confidentiality Roulette in Proceedings.  The post discusses an April 25, 2018 decision of the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, setting forth the conditions under which an intervenor in a patent case will be allowed access to allegedly confidential business information disclosed to other parties under a nondisclosure agreement.  The authors believe that the effect of the decision will be that, in FRAND cases in particular, patentees will have a difficult time shielding comparable licenses from being reviewed by defendants and intervenors.  Definitely worth a read. For previous discussion on this blog, see here.

    2.  On the Kluwer Patent Blog, Hui Zhang, Mengling Liu, and James Yang have published a ver informative post titled Beijing High Court upholds China’s first-ever SEP injunction in Iwncomm v. Sony.  The authors express hope that the Supreme People’s Court will grant review to clarify some of the issues presented.  For previous discussion on this blog, see here and here.

    3.  On Spicy IP, Adarsh Ramanujan has published a post titled Understanding the Public Interest Element of the Injunction Analysis in Patent Infringement CasesThis is a very interesting post, highlighting the differences between and among India, the U.K., and the U.S. in evaluating the public interest factor, particularly in the case of health care related inventions.  For previous discussion on this blog, see, e.g., here and here.
    Continue Reading ...