IP Blog
35 USC § 102
Prior Art Anticipates Claims because “A” means “One or More”
The Central District of California held that claims directed to “‘an induction actuated container which is capable of automatically opening when a user is approaching, and automatically closing when the user has left’” are invalid because they are anticipated by prior art. Nine Stars Group (U.S.A.), Inc. v. Factory Direct Wholesale, LLC, No. 18-6471 PSG (PJWx) (C.D.Cal. Apr. 6, 2020)...
CAFC: Obviousness and Design Patents: Spigen Korea Co., LTD. v. Ultraproof, Inc.
The Federal Circuit, in reversing a court’s decision to grant summary judgment of invalidity of claims of three design patents, held that the identification of multiple differences between the claimed design and a cited reference created a factual issue as to “whether [the cited reference] is a proper primary reference” to support an obviousness inquiry for design patents. Spigen Korea...
Anticipation of Software Patent Claims: Arguments Must Be Consistent with Court’s Claim Construction
In a decision instructive on patent claim interpretation and anticipation analysis in software cases, claims directed to “computerized fitness equipment” that “simulates… actual race conditions with other users” were held invalid because as anticipated by prior art. VR Optics, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc, No. 16-cv-6392 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020) (patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,902,513). The court noted...
Court Overturns § 102 Rejection Due to Limiting Preamble
The Federal Circuit overturned a PTAB decision affirming anticipation rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of patent claims directed to “the construction of travel trailers” because the the PTAB “erred in concluding [the preamble] does not limit the scope of the claims.” In Re: Fought et al., No. 2019-1127 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (See U.S. Patent Application PG-Pub. No. 2014/0008932). The...
Court Denies Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment to Not Invalidate Under On-Sale Bar
Having previously denied summary judgment of invalidity of the plaintiff’s design patent, D450,839, under the 35 U.S.C. § 102 on-sale bar, the court in Junker v. Medical Components, Inc., et al., No. 2-13-cv-04606 (E.D. Pa Oct. 8, 2019), has denied a request for reconsideration that communications between plaintiff and a prospective buyer were not a legal offer for sale. Along...
Failure to Disclose Sales Before Critical Date is Inequitable Conduct
Failure to disclose “material information of prior sales” resulted in a holding that U.S. Patent No. 8,146,428 “is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct” based on a finding of a “specific intent to deceive the PTO into granting the patent.” Total Rebuild, Inc. v. PHC Fluid Power, LLC, No. 6:15-CV-1855 (W.D. La. Sept. 13, 2019). The ‘428 patent is directed to...