Lack of demonstrated criticality of narrowly claimed range fails to overcome anticipation rejection based on broadly disclosed prior art range
Ken Salen | February 22, 2012
ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc.
February 17, 2012
Panel: Prost, Schall and Moore. Opinion by Moore.
Summary
ClearValue accused Pearl River of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,120,690 (’690 patent). The jury found that the ’690 patent was valid and indirectly infringed. The 5th Circuit District court denied Pearl River’s subsequent motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity and noninfringement of the ‘690 patent. Pearl River appealed the district court’s denial of its motions for JMOL. Holding that the jury’s verdict was not supported by substantial evidence, the CAFC reversed the denial of the motion for JMOL of invalidity (i.e., the CAFC held the patent-in-suit invalid), concluding that a prior art limitation of “less than 150 ppm” anticipates a claimed range of “less than or equal to 50” unless criticality of the narrowly claimed range is demonstrated.
Tags: anticipation > criticality of ranges > KenSalen > obviousness > ranges
CAFC Allows Willful Infringer to Continue Infringements for an “Ongoing Royalty” Due to “the Public’s Interest to Allow Competition in the Medical Device Arena”
Stephen Parker | February 16, 2012
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc., et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
February 10, 2012
Panel: Gajarsa, Linn and Newman. Opinion by Gajarsa. Dissent by Newman.
Summary
This decision concludes a forty-year-long story that began in 1973 between two cooperating individuals that independently filed patent applications for vascular grafts in 1974. Those applications went to interference in 1983 and have been the subject of ongoing litigation since, concluding now in the current CAFC decision. The Arizona district court from which the present case was appealed expressed that this was “the most complicated case the district court has [ever] presided over.” In this case, the Gore inventor was the first to both 1) conceive of the invention and 2) file a patent application in 1974 (i.e., filing 6 months prior to the Bard inventor), but Gore lost in an interference before the Patent Office. Now, Gore is found to be willfully infringing the patent that was awarded to Bard, and is subjected to doubled damages (i.e., totaling $371 million) and attorney’s fees (i.e., totaling $19 million). However, despite these findings, the CAFC allows Gore to continue infringing, declining a permanent injunction and awarding reasonable royalties in the amount of between 12.5% to 20% for future infringements due to the weight of “the public interest to allow competition in the medical device arena.”
Tags: damages > first-to-file > inventorship > ongoing royalty > permanent injunction > StevenParker > willfulness
CAFC reviews and applies the doctrine of claim construction
William Westerman | February 11, 2012
Thorner v. Sony
February 1, 2012
Panel: Rader, Moore, Aiken. Opinion by Moore.
Summary
The CAFC reverses a determination by the district court that there was no infringement because a limitation was improperly imported into the claim. Because the district court improperly limited the term “attached to said pad” to mean attachment only to an external surface and erred in its construction of the term “flexible”, the CAFC vacated and remanded.
Tags: claim construction > disavowal > lexicographer > ordinary and customary meaning > WilliamWesterman
CAFC provides guidance for patent eligibility of computer aided methods
Andrew Melick | February 1, 2012
Dealertrack v. Huber
January 20, 2012
Panel: Linn, Plager Dyk. Opinion by Linn. Dissent by Plager.
Summary
The CAFC affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for patent ineligibility under § 101. The CAFC stated that the claim at issue recited a “computer aided method” without reciting how the computer aids the method, the extent to which a computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. The claims are invalid as being directed to an abstract idea preemptive of a fundamental concept or idea that would foreclose innovation in this area. Other issues were addressed in the opinion; however, this discussion only addresses the issue of patent eligibility under § 101.
Tags: AndrewMelick > bilski > computer aided method > patent eligible subject matter > §101