vtdigger.orgVermont fights patent troll case on two fronts
The Office of the Vermont Attorney General is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the state’s 2013 law designed to stop companies from making “abusive” patent infringement claims. Solicitor General Bridget Asay filed a document …
The RecorderFederal Circuit Tightens Squeeze on Software Patents
Judge Jimmie V. Reyna, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit J. Albert Diaz. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has completed its one-two punch against vaguely worded means-plus-function patent claims. Sitting en banc …
Federal Circuit Strikes Its Own Blow Against Overbroad Software PatentsEFF
Federal Circuit invalidates web conference patent, reverses itselfReuters
Williamson v. Citrix: En Banc Opinion on § 112, para. 6Patently-O
The final round of this year’s IPBC Global 2015 conference was given over to breakout sessions. This blogger could not resist the lure of attending the session dedicated to a true IP finance topic: “Value conundrums”. According to the event’s web-blur…Continue Reading ...
In Cobalt v Bayer the Federal Court of Appeal has explicitly called into question two central principles of Canadian patent law: the standard of review for claim construction and the patentability of methods of medical treatment. The court noted that a…Continue Reading ...
$$ It can be seen from FIG. 3 that the transmission curves are approximately bell-shaped. / 透過曲線は、ほぼベル形であることが図３から分る。(USP7649626)
$$ The ball retriever of claim 13 wherein the strap is H-shaped. (USP5800280)
$$ The key may be V-shaped having two vertexes. (USP6965789)
$$ Flow sensor 32 and the unseen sensor are L-shaped in construction for ease of fitment into head 20. (USP01025858)
$$ The two parts 12, 14 are generally U-shaped and shaped to fit together in an overlapping fashion. / ２つの部分１２、１４は、一般的にＵ字形であり、重なり合ってはまり合うような形状になっている。(USP6860455): shaped to-V
$$ Basically the wheels 44,46 are star-shaped, the teeth are triangular in side view and the wheels are positioned and arranged so that, as they rotate, the teeth mesh together. (USP02014009)
$$ The waveguide structure is generally tree-shaped, having a main trunk 18, two first-level branches 20, and four second-level branches 22. / 光導波管構造１６は、通常メイントランク１８、２つの第１レベルのブランチ２０及び４つの第２レベルのブランチ２２を有するツリー形状である。(USP5408567)
$$ However, the outlet ports do not have to be cylindrical, and they could for example be slot-shaped or arcuate. / しかし吐出口は円筒形である必要はなく、例えば溝穴状または円弧形とする事ができる。(USP6299422)
$$ Another objective is to allow concentric-shaped images and unsupported images. (USP02018284)
$$ In the FIG. 2 view, the casing 4 is shown with a minor modification which provides a bell-shaped opening 6 at the air entry end. / 図２において、ケーシング４は、気流入口端でベル形開口６にした小変更をともなって示されている。(USP7581381)
$$ The other leg portions 201b of the L-shaped brackets 201 connect the brackets to respective pivot pins 256 extending through the panels 240. / Ｌ－形のブラケット２０１の他の脚部２０１ｂは、ブラケットを板２４０を通過して延びる、それぞれの枢支ピン２５６に接続する。(USP7575279)
$$ Referring to FIG. 1, an apparatus according to the present invention comprises a generally L-shaped housing 1. (USP6253899)
$$ Similarly to FIG. 2, the sealing element 50 comprises an annular metallic member of U-shaped cross-section, with at least one sealing bump 12 around its outer periphery and at least one sealing bump 14 around its inner surface. (USP02074742) 断面Ｕ字状の
$$ The offset ball-shaped foam element 1 allows for maximum variation between ear shapes and sizes whilst reducing fatigue with prolonged use of the device. (USP6477258)
$$ This tightens the clamp around the pole, so that the support is fictionally held by many similar-shaped surfaces. (USP6682031)
$$ FIGS. 1A and 1B are schematic views of a substantially pen-shaped hand held data entry device. / 第１Ａ図および第１Ｂ図は、実質的にペンの形状をなすハンドヘルドデータエントリ装置の概略図である。(USP6058304)
$$ Exterior section 3 comprises a flange 7 which is a circular washer-shaped annulus, the axis 8 of which is at an angle of 30° to the axis 6 of the body section 2. / 外側部分３は円形のワッシャ状の環であるフランジ７を備え、その軸線８はボデー部分２の軸線６に対して角度３０°にある。(USP6186974)
$$ …quarter-disc-shaped side walls 30b, 30c…(USP6253899)
$$ A cup-shaped rubber bush 51 is fitted in bearing section 55 of the portion 53 and a ceramic bearing 50 is received therein in known manner. (USP6524078)
$$ In this example, the fluid pump 10 has a box-shaped housing 20 with a front plate 23 removably secured thereto by screws (not shown). / この実施例において、流体ポンプ10はボックス型ハウジング20を有し、このハウジングに対して正面プレート23がネジ(図示されていない)によって着脱自在に取付けられている。(USP6299422)
$$ In an alternative to the preferred embodiment a small disk-shaped sensor is located proximate to the ear canal. (USP02076059)
$$ An LED lamp according to claim 1 comprising light emitting elements having triangular-shaped top faces. (USP02063521)
$$ The magnet 8 used in this exemplary bench-top system is a horseshoe-shaped magnet made from light weight, high temperature stable, bonded alloy. (USP02036501)
$$ The DMD selectively reflects light of the properly-shaped aperture onto the stage. (USP02018284)
$$ The tilt sensor comprises a housing 200 which defines therein a part-spherical or "bowl-shaped" surface 202. (USP01024586)
$$ A device as claimed in claim 3, wherein at least one said hole of the read-out means is present at the end of a strip-shaped part of said body portion, which part extends into said recess from the ambipolar drift path. (USP4859851)
$$ The rotor 200 of FIG. 1 includes twelve apertures 220 therethrough, each aperture being shaped like a segment of a flattened, planar, ring. / 図１のロータ２００は、ロータを貫通する１２個の開口部２２０を含み、各開口部は、扁平で平面的なリングの一部であるような形状をしている。(USP8624456)
$$ The container may be shaped like a rectangular prism in which the first pair of opposing side walls are wider or longer than the second pair of opposing side walls. / 上記容器は、矩形のプリズム様の形状に形成され、対向する第１の対の側壁部が、対向する第２の対の側壁部より広いか又は長くてもよい。(USP8348143)
$$ The shape of the teat is also similar to the human breast, the base portion 116 being shaped like a breast and having a wide, domed configuration. / 乳首の形状も人間の胸に似ており、ベース部１１６は胸のような形であって、広いドーム型に構成されている。(USP8181800)
$$ The distal end of the first arm 35a is shaped like the bottom end of a hurling stick with the pivot point in the enlarged portion. (USP6253899)
$$ In accordance with the invention, the handle is shaped like a "T" with the vertical stroke of the T (3) swivellably connected to the rope (1). (USP7223211)
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
Federal Circuit Strikes Its Own Blow Against Overbroad Software Patents
Today, in Williamson v. Citrix, the Federal Circuit overruled its ill-advised case law that has been one of the primary drivers of overbroad software patents. The court finally recognized that patent applicants cannot bypass certain limits on patent …
Federal Circuit Tightens Squeeze on Software PatentsThe Recorder
Williamson v. Citrix: En Banc Opinion on § 112, para. 6Patently-O
Monster is considered one of the world’s leading manufacturers of high performance cables that connect audio/video components for home, car and professional use as well as computers and computer games. In fact Monster had been making licensed accessori…Continue Reading ...
The result in Williamson v. Citrix:
Because the district court erroneously
construed the limitations “graphical display
representative of a classroom” and “first graphical display
comprising . . . a classroom region,” we vacate the judgment
of non-infringement of claims 1–7 and 17–24 of
the ’840 patent. Because the district court correctly
construed the limitation “distributed learning control
module,” we affirm the judgment of invalidity of claims 8–
12 of the ’840 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 1122, para. 2.
Accordingly, we remand.
We agree with Williamson. The district court erred in
construing these terms as requiring a “pictorial map.”
First, the claim language itself contains no such “pictorial
map” limitation. “[I]t is the claims, not the written description,
which define the scope of the patent right.”
Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); see also id. (“[A] court may not import limitations
from the written description into the claims.”).
While the specification discloses examples and embodiments
where the virtual classroom is depicted as a “map”
or “seating chart,” nowhere does the specification limit the
graphical display to those examples and embodiments.
This court has repeatedly “cautioned against limiting the
claimed invention to preferred embodiments or specific
examples in the specification.” Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N.
Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting
cases) (citations omitted).
The ’840 patent defines a classroom as “an at least
partially virtual space in which participants can interact.”
Id. at col.6 ll.5–6. Nothing further is required, and no
greater definition is mandated by the language of the
claims, the specification, or the prosecution history. As is
well settled, the claims must “not be read restrictively
unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to
limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest
exclusion or restriction.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc., v.
Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1117
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (internal quotations omitted).
Judge Reyna writes separately
This is the second time around for this case. In the
first, Williamson I, I dissented from the majority conclusion
that the “distributed learning control module” term
of claim 8 of the ’840 patent recites sufficient structure to
keep the claim limitation “distributed learning control
module” outside of the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph
In this second time around, Williamson II, the majority
reverses itself to conclude that the “distributed learning
control module” term does not recite sufficient
structure, is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6,
and is indefinite under paragraph 2. Because this conclusion
is the correct result, I concur. To explain my
concurrence, I rely on the reasons I laid out in my dissent
in Williamson I.
The majority, however, continues to ignore critical evidence
showing that an image of a visually depicted
virtual classroom is required by claim 8 of the ‘840 patent.
I dissent from that portion of this opinion.
Of functional claiming
Arguably, this rationale applies to functional claiming
generally, not just to claims that recite “means.” Indeed,
the Halliburton Court relied on precedent invalidating
functional claims that did not recite the term “means.”
Id. at 9 (citing Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.,
277 U.S. 245, 256–57 (1928).) The continued viability of
this rationale, and its impact on how this Court applies
§ 112, para. 6 merits attention.
In sum, my view is that perhaps we need to revisit our
judicially-created § 112, para. 6 presumptions.
Note footnote 1:
The earlier opinion in this case, reported at 770
F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014), is withdrawn, and this opinion
substituted therefore. Part II.C.1. of this opinion has
been considered and decided by the court en banc. See
Order in this case issued this date.
Judge Newman’s dissent begins
I respectfully dissent from the en banc ruling that is
inserted into this panel opinion at Section II.C.1. The
court en banc changes the law and practice of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 paragraph 6, by eliminating the statutory signal of
the word “means.” The purpose of this change, the benefit,
is obscure. The result, however, is clear: additional
uncertainty of the patent grant, confusion in its interpretation,
invitation to litigation, and disincentive to patentbased
Our consideration of this case has led us to conclude
that such a heightened burden is unjustified
and that we should abandon characterizing as “strong” the
tion that a limitation lacking the word “means” is not
subject to §112, para. 6. That characterization
ranted, is uncertain in meaning and application,
and has the inappropriate practical effect of placing a
thumb on what should otherwise be a balanced
analytical scale. It has
shifted the balance struck by Congress in passing §
112, para. 6 and has resulted in a proliferation of func-
tional claiming untethered to §
112, para. 6 and free of
the strictures set forth in the statute.
Henceforth, we will
apply the presumption
as we have done prior to
without requiring any heightened evidentiary
showing and expressly overrule the
hat presumption as “strong.”
We also overrule the
strict requirement of “a showing that the limitation
essentially is devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.”
The standard isContinue Reading ...
whether the words of the claim are
understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have
a sufficiently definite meaning
as the name for structure. Greenberg, 91 F.3d at
1583. When a claim term lacks the word “means,”
the presumption can be overcome and §112, para. 6 will apply
if the challenger demonstrates
that the claim term fails to “recite sufficiently definite
structure ” or else recites“
function without reciting suffi-
cient structure for performing that function.”
Federal Circuit invalidates web conference patent, reverses itself
In doing so, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a previous panel decision involving a computer-aided “virtual classroom” patent, and affirmed a ruling by a federal court in Los Angeles that several claims in the patent were …
Arizona State UniversityASU proves its patent prowess with global ranking
Arizona State University
A new report from the National Academy of Inventors and the Intellectual Property Owners Association ranks ASU among the top 50 international universities for the number of patents issued to its researchers in 2014. ASU’s 48 patents granted that year …
The General Court of the European Union recently confirmed that the trademarks SKY and SKYPE were confusingly similar. The decision is a setback for the popular Skype service, which allows users to call and chat over the Internet for free.Continue Reading ...
UPDATE 1-Sweden’s Elekta sues US Varian over alleged patent infringement
Elekta, a maker of equipment used in cancer treatments, said in a statement Varian’s True Beam linear accelerator infringed patents owned by William Beaumont Hospital and exclusively licensed to the Swedish company. Elekta also said it believed Varian …
The Tuesday afternoon programme for this year’s Intellectual Property Business Conference (IPBC Global 2015) was dedicated to breakout sessions. This blogger attended one on the theme of “New corporate realities”. As the organisers explained: “As IP m…Continue Reading ...
From the Washington Times,
Patent-reform bill hit from both sides of the aisle
“It’s a broad-spectrum weed killer, but it’s killing plants, too,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican and MIT graduate who said he holds 29 patents.
“The problem,” he said, “is everything this does to a troll, it does to a legitimate inventor.”
Mr. Massie is leading the fight alongside Reps. Dana Rohrabacher, California Republican, and Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Democrat.
Some conservatives see the reform legislation as a gift from the administration to Google, which stands to gain from a tightened legal patent process as it battles competitors such as Apple Inc.
Mr. Massie said larger companies are not dissuaded from ripping off ideas, because the law weakens a judge’s ability to freeze the company’s ability to ship products once they are caught.Continue Reading ...
- In-House Lawyer Fired for Complaining that Application Filing Quota Caused Ethics Violation Able to Sue
- Standard Patent Size
- PTAB erred finding claims nonobvious in IPR, Federal Circuit reverses without remand
- Critiques Alone Are Insufficient to Outweigh Expert Experiments and Testimony
- Unlocking Examiner Rejections: Using Forward Citations Strategically in Prosecution, Litigation and Due Diligence