#claim construction

[nationallawreview]

Adequacy of Explanation Remains Key Area of PTAB Reversal

Adequacy of Explanation Remains Key Area of PTAB Reversal

In Vivint, Inc. v. Alarm.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a claim constructionby the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) which “suggest[ed] the opposite” of the teachings of the patents at issue, and gave guidance to practitioners on when the Board’s reliance on expert testimony entitles the Board’s construction to deference. The Court’s non-precedential opinion is consistent with a…

View On WordPress

[sheldon-mak-anderson-blog]

New Post has been published on eyeonip.net

New Post has been published on http://www.eyeonip.net/3184/weekly-roundup-june-10-to-14-2013/

Weekly Roundup June 10 to 14, 2013

Copyrights

Computer Scientists Speak Out Against Copyrighting of Java APIs

International IP

IP Law

GDP Going Gaga: Recalculation to Capture Input From Entertainment Industry

Patents

Patent Legislation Mounting in Congress

ABA Urges Federal Circuit to Reverse Course on Claim Construction Rulings

Trade Secrets

Trademarks

Warner Bros.’s Dark Night Rises Above Trademark Dispute

[ipatents]

Inventive but not Novel! "I can understand that at first glance the finding that claim 5 lacks novelty may be at odds with the finding that it is inventive... The difference lies in the legal test for novelty and obviousness. Novelty invokes a consideration as to whether the public is already possessed of what is claimed. It does not matter whether it is invented or not. Here I have found that, within the tests as set out in Sanofi, the public was already in possession of what is claimed in claim 5 of the ’457 Patent."

Merck & Co. Inc. v. Pharmascience inc., 2010 FC 510, per Hughes J.