Filewrapper-old

Federal Circuit Finds Clones Unpatentable
May 12, 2014

    The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Roslin Institute, a case involving cloned animals. The Roslin Institute (Roslin) owns a patent for methods of cloning animals, based on the work that created Dolly the Sheep. The inventors of that patent also assigned to Roslin an application claiming protection for the clones themselves. During prosecution, the USPTO deemed the claims to the clones contained in t....... Read More


    "Insolubly Ambiguous" Standard not Applicable at the USPTO
    May 09, 2014

      InIn re Packard the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO need not follow the insolubly ambiguous standard in order to satisfy a prima facie rejection for indefiniteness. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the clai....... Read More


      Competing Without Practicing?Preliminary Injunctions for Patent Infringement
      April 24, 2014

        InTrebo Manufacturing, Inc., v. Firefly Equipment, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction for patent infringement does not need to practice the patent at issue in order to receive an injunction, so long as it sells a competing product. Trebro brought suit alleging that FireFly's sod harvester product infringed its U.S. Patent No. 8,336,638, and seeking a preliminary i....... Read More


        StoneEagle v. Gillman ? Patent Inventorship, Authorship, and Ownership
        March 31, 2014

          In StoneEagle Services, Inc.,v. Gillman the Federal Circuit confirmed that assistance in reducing aninvention to practice generally does not contribute to inventorship. In this case, the issue centered on whether there was a sufficient controversy regarding inventorship for the case to remain in federal court. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had "falsely claimed that it is his patent, that he wrote ....... Read More


          Means-Plus-Function Claims and Written Description for Priority
          February 10, 2014

            InEnOcean GMBH v. Face International Corp., the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a final order of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) with respect to EnOcean’s U.S. Patent Application No. 10/304,121. The Federal Circuit held (1) the term “receiver” was recited with sufficient structure as to not inv....... Read More


            Patent Invalidity Based on Non-Compliant Claims of Priority
            February 03, 2014

              InMedtronic Corevalve, LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp., the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,892,281 ("the '281 patent") based on the patent's claimed priority date. Medtronic sued Edwards for infringement of claims 3, 4, 7, 12, 14, and 15 of the '281 patent. The U.S. District Court of the Central District of California gr....... Read More


              Federal Circuit Clarifies Patent Term Adjustment
              January 23, 2014

                The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an opinion that provides guidance for how Patent Term Adjustments should be calculated. Between June 2009 and May 2011, Novartis filed four civil lawsuits against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia claiming that, for twenty-three of its issued patents, the D....... Read More


                Exhausting Patent Rights Without a "Sale"
                November 22, 2013

                  InLifeScan Scotland, LTD v. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit clarified the ability of a patnet holder to enforce patent rights in a product it has given away, but not "sold." Defendant Shasta Technologies appealed from a decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granting LifeScan Scotland a preliminary injunction. The injunction prohibits Shasta f....... Read More


                  New and Useful - August 26, 2013
                  August 26, 2013

                    · InUniversity of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit held that a patent lawsuit between a state university and the officers of another state university is not a controversy between two states. The case began when the University of Utah (“UUtah”) sued the Max Planck Institute and the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) to correct inventorship of two paten....... Read More


                    Supplier's Agreement to Manufacture May Trigger On-Sale Bar
                    August 16, 2013

                      In an Opinion on August 14, 2013 (Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Products, Inc.), the Federal Circuit ruled that the on-sale bar was triggered when a purchase order for slow cookers by patentee Hamilton Beach was confirmed by its supplier. The Court stated that Hamilton Beach’s transaction with its supplier was an offer for sale of a product that anticipated the asserted claims and that the inventio....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.