|
Back to Patenting Federal Circuit Case Law |
|
"[T]he specification …[u]sually …is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed claim." Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc. pdf
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California requires "early disclosure of infringement and invalidity contentions" and requires amendments "to be filed with diligence" during litigation. 02 Micro International Limited et al. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. pdf
A "full inquiry" into functionality of a design patent requires questioning whether "alternative designs would adversely affect the utility of the specified article." PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc. pdf
" The enablement requirement for prior art to anticipate under section 102 does not require utility, unlike the enablement requirement for patents under section 112." Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. pdf
“[W]hen a reissue claim, while broader in certain respects than the original patent claim, is materially narrowed in other respects, the recapture rule does not apply.” Medtronic v. Guidant pdf Incorporation of “the American Arbitration Association Rules” into a license agreement gives the arbitrator “the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction.” Qualcomm v. Nokia pdf
A patent licensee “may cease payments due under a
license” but only upon linking the non-payment to claim
invalidity. Go Medical v. Inmed
pdf
|
Web page Complements of
Marvin Motsenbocker Ph.D. J.D.
"Out of confusion grows knowledge......"
The case summaries and other
information here represent the contemporary, private views of
Marvin Motsenbocker and are intended to be informative only and
not to give legal advice or opinions. Any views expressed or
implied are subject to change and are not necessarily those of
any law firm, its attorneys or clients.