« March 2015 | Main | May 2015 »

April 27, 2015

Elevator Music

Info-Hold sued Muzak and Applied Media Technologies for infringing 5,991,374, which claims playing the music ubiquitously found in commercial establishments. Ohio district court judge Timothy S. Black demonstrated bias towards Muzak in his claim construction. Such corruption is common in district courts throughout the country, and is often let pass on appeal, if the CAFC shares the same plutocratic bias. In this case, the CAFC (2013-1528) reversed and remanded.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 8:46 PM | Claim Construction

Not Final

Automated Merchandising Sytems (AMS) sued Crane for infringing four patents. Crane responded by filing inter partes reexaminations on the patents. The parties settled. AMS tried to stop the reexams, but the PTO refused. And the courts refused to contravene the PTO refusal.

Continue reading "Not Final"

Posted by Patent Hawk at 4:29 PM |

April 8, 2015

Disparate Legal Precedents

In Vasudevan v Tibco et al (CAFC 2014-1094), the district court managed a clean claim construction that went to accessing "disparate databases." It then ruled in summary judgment that the specification did not meet the written description requirement and was not enabled (both deficiencies in meeting §112(a)). It did so with solid reasoning.

A specification must "contain a written description of the invention." 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 (2006). The test for the sufficiency of the written description "is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date."
A specification must "enable" a person of skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶1 (2006). Enablement is a legal question based on underlying factual determinations.

On appeal, the CAFC reversed on the §112(a) decision, inscrutably asserting there was "genuine issues of material fact," without pointing out what they could possibly be, given that the patent holder had every opportunity to disclose the facts prior to the district court's decision, and failed to do so to statutory satisfaction. According to the CAFC in this ruling, a patentee need not adequately describe an invention or be in possession of it when filing the patent.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:33 AM | § 112


In Apotex v. Daiichi Sankyo v. Mylan (CAFC 2014-1281, -1292), the CAFC grabs the litigation cudgel that a district court refused to pick up because it did not perceive a controversy meriting litigation. The CAFC reversed, as the parties involved had financial stakes in who first gets to make a generic version of a drug going off patent. The case illustrates the byzantine inanity that characterizes the U.S. drug patent system.

Posted by Patent Hawk at 3:09 AM | Case Law