ARTICLE
19 May 2022

Judge Albright Invalidates Ikorongo Patents Under Original Patent Doctrine

WT
Winston Taylor

Contributor

Whether you're leading the way, disrupting an industry, entering a new phase of growth, or launching a defining product—we're in the room with you. In the action. Sleeves rolled up.

With a rich history spanning both sides of the Atlantic, we are present in the major commercial centers that matter to our clients: the U.S., the U.K., Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East. Combining scale with the speed clients demand, our defining capabilities include major litigation, critical transactions, strategic IP, and private wealth.

Our team of over 1,400 lawyers works hand-in-hand across markets, sectors, practice areas, and client teams. All-in problem solvers, we bring the creativity to think differently, and the pragmatism to get things done when it counts the most.

Embedded in your business and sharing your ambition, we take the work personally. Shaping what we do and how we do it around your goals and needs, always one step ahead of the moment.

On April 12, 2022, in Ikorongo Technology LLC, et al. v. Bumble Trading LLC, Judge Albright granted Bumble's motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 251...
United States Intellectual Property

On April 12, 2022, in Ikorongo Technology LLC, et al. v. Bumble Trading LLC, Judge Albright granted Bumble's motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 251, which contains the original patent requirement.

35 U.S.C. § 251 allows patent owners to correct errors in issued patents “by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent.” In this case, the patent owner filed broadening reissues, to broaden the scope of the claims. Under § 251(a), if a patent owner alters the claims, the reissued claims must be “for the invention disclosed in the original patent.” Judge Albright explained that the original patent requirement protects the public because when a reissue enlarges the scope of the patent, the patent owner had led the public to rely on the original patent to describe the scope of the invention.

The original patents were directed to users sharing experiences with buddies. The reissued claims were directed to the tracking of a user with a GPS-enabled cell phone, without other related experience information. Judge Albright concluded that “[a] fair reading did not put the public on notice that the claims should have been corrected to cover a satellite-based, geographic location tracking invention for sharing one's visited geographic location data with buddies, without including the sharing of related experience information.”

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More