On April 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC,[1] that in spite of a favorable prior judicial ruling (although not necessarily on §101 patent subject matter-eligibility), issue preclusion did not apply, and affirmed the patent-ineligibility holding by the district court. The …
Category: patent
Fed Circuit Watch: District Court Bungles Inventorship Issue, Holds Federal Circuit
In a blend of jurisdictional and patent formality law, James v. J2 Cloud Services, LLC,[1] deals with the question of whether the inventor retained ownership over a patent so he had standing to sue for correction-of-inventorship under 35 U.S.C. §256. The vehicle used was an agreement, so much of the analysis is an understanding of …
Fed Circuit Watch: Dropped Priority Claim Invalidates Patent
On April 19, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Droplets, Inc. v. E*Trade Bank,[1] in a case dealing with the formal issue of preparing a proper claim of priority in the specification. The absence of one will cause major problems downstream, as it did for Droplets, Inc. The facts are …
Fed Circuit Watch: Swearing Behind Must be Supported by Sufficient Evidence
On April 17, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Apator Miitors ApS v. Kamstrup A/S,[1] that in order for a patent assignee to swear behind a reference by antedating its own conception, it must do so by more than just merely providing the inventor’s statement of conception. The facts are …
SCOTUS Watch: IPRs Do Not Violate Article III or Seventh Amendment
Article III of the U.S. Constitution states: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.[1] Also, the Copyright and Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution states: The Congress shall have power . . …
Fed Circuit Watch: Plain Claim Language Not Narrowed Unless Patentee Explicitly Disclaims Scope
An interesting study in organic chemistry appeared at the Federal Circuit. On April 16, 2018, a Fed Circuit panel in Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. v. Emcure Pharm. Ltd.,[1] held that plain claim language will be construed narrowly absent the patentee’s clear disclaimer limiting its scope. First a primer on stereochemistry, which is the study …
WesternGeco Damages Case Before SCOTUS in Doubt After Fed Circuit Ruling
A recently-issued decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may have implications on a pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court. That case, WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.,[1] was issued May 7, 2018, and may affect how the Supreme Court rules in a related case involving the same parties and patents …
Fed Circuit Watch: Personalized Medicine Method Claim Passes Alice Test for Subject Matter Eligibility
This case, Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd.,[1] arrived to the appeals court through an unusual, but not uncommon, route: a 35 U.S.C. §271(e)(4)(A) infringement resulting from a 21 U.S.C. §355(j) application, or the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) (aka, generic drug approval process). However, the other aspect of this case is that …
Fed Circuit Watch: Knowles Déjà Vu as PTAB Not (Necessarily) Bound to Prior Court Claim Construction
In a case of déjà vu, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed down Knowles Electronics LLC v. Iancu,[1] on April 6, 2018. This case bears striking resemblance to an earlier-issued case this term, Knowles Electronics LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc., of which the issues were previously discussed on this blog. The panels …
Fed Circuit Watch: No Overlap Required for Prima Facie Obviousness Between Claimed & Prior Art Ranges
On March 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in In re Brandt, which is just another case in a long line of cases dealing with ranges and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The facts are as follows. Gregory A. Brandt and John B. Letts, the application-at-issue’s two inventors, and Firestone …