Ivera Medical Corporation v. Hospira, Inc. (No. 2014-1613, 9/8/15) (Newman, Reyna, Taranto)
September 8, 2015 11:40 AM
Reyna, J. Reversing summary judgment of invalidity for obviousness. There was a genuine factual dispute about what a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Media Rights Technologies v. Capital One Financial Corp (No. 2014-1218, 9/4/15) (O'Malley, Plager, Taranto)
September 4, 2015 10:33 AM
O'Malley, J. Affirming judgment on the pleadings that all claims were invalid for indefiniteness. All claims contained a limitation of a "compliance mechanism," which was a means-plus-function term that lacked sufficient structure in the specification. "We have never found that the term "mechanism"— without more—connotes an identifiable structure; certainly, merely adding the modifier "compliance" to that term would not do so either." "Where there are multiple claimed functions, as there are in this case, the patentee must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform all of the claimed functions."
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. National Graphics, Inc. (No. 2015-1214, 9/4/15) (Lourie, Bryson, O'Malley)
September 4, 2015 4:20 PM
Lourie, J. Affirming PTAB decision not to reject claims in an inter partes review because the petitioner failed to carry its burden to prove unpatentability; the petitioner failed to prove that a reference on which it relied was entitled to the benefit of the reference's provisional filing date and so was prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). There is no presumption in an inter partes review that an alleged prior art patent is entitled to the filing date of its provisional application.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
Dome Patent L.P. v. Lee (No. 2014-1673, 9/3/15) (Reyna, Schall, Hughes)
September 3, 2015 1:15 PM
Hughes, J. Affirming district court judgment of obviousness in a review under 35 U.S.C. § 145 of a PTO decision in an ex parte reexamination. The district court was correct in requiring the Patent Office to show obviousness by only a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The nature of the problem to be solved, understanding that high oxygen permeability in contact-lens materials was desirable, would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to combine a monomer disclosed in one prior art reference with a cross-linking agent disclosed in another prior art reference to increase the oxygen permeability of a contact lens.
A full version of the text is available in PDF form.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
