Below, Advantek Marketing, Inc. v. Shanghai Walk-Long Tools Co., LTD (Fed. Cir. August 1, 2018) is discussed in terms of whether the scope of design patent protection is affected when electing a species in response to a restriction requirement. However, the context of the parties and how the litigation arose provides insights on how U.S. companies might better protect … [Read more...]
The patent claim defines the scope of patent protection afforded under the patent. The patent claim may be an apparatus or method claim.
Browse related articles below.
Collateral estoppel is a legal rule that protects a party from having to litigate issues that have already been fully and fairly tried in a previous action and adversely resolved against a party-opponent. This rule can work against the patent owner or the defendant during litigation. Collateral estoppel works against the patent owner In general but not always, collateral … [Read more...]
A system claim is a claim directed to a system having a number of different components that work together. In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patent claim being litigated was a system claim. The patent was directed to the broad concept of transferring computer files electronically from one location to another, and more particularly … [Read more...]
A patent claim has three major sections, namely, a preamble, a transitional phrase and a body. The body of the claim contains the elements which define the scope of patent protection as defined by that claim. The transitional phrase indicates whether incorporating other elements or components in an accused infringing device other than those elements recited in the body would … [Read more...]
The words that one uses in describing the invention in a patent application have significant impact as to the claim scope in any patent that might mature from the patent application. In MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC v. Ricoh Americas Corporation (Fed. Cir. February 13, 2017), a non-provisional patent application which was identical to its corresponding provisional patent … [Read more...]
In AGIS, Inc. v. Life360, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), AGIS (patent owner) held a patent directed to a cellular communication system that allows multiple cellular phone users to monitor the location of others and their status via a visual display. Symbols generated on the visual display (e.g., user’s cellular phone) represented the locations of the other users. In the … [Read more...]
Bottom line: Software patent specifications require disclosure of an algorithm for all means-plus-function limitations. Otherwise, the claim may be invalid for being indefinite. The problem may not be related solely to means limitations since a non-means limitation could be impliedly construed as a means-plus-function limitation even without using the trigger word … [Read more...]
Bottom line: The Federal Circuit construed the meaning of a phrase (i.e., a contact hole) which typically is construed to mean “one or more” to mean “two or more.” This case illustrates the fickleness of patent litigation and how the entire case could turn on not only one phrase in the claims but the varying opinions of how the judge, jury or the Federal Circuit might think a … [Read more...]