Currently Browsing CPLRG™ by: Case Name
Browse By: Case Date | Case Number
Suitco Surface, Inc., In re, 603 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Prost & Moore)SuitcoSurface04142010
MAJOR ISSUES: PTO reexamination; broadest reasonable construction of claims; construction not reasonable; PTO findings on reference disclosure Read CPLRG™ 0049
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. 593 F.3d 1325, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (LINN, Friedman & Dyk)
MAJOR ISSUES: Jury verdict of invalidity; “anticipation or obviousness”; erroneous “could-have-combined” instruction on anticipation; harmless error harmless; claims obvious based on prior art reference showing all claim examples in multiple examples; long-felt need for solution to a problem as evidence of unobviousness; claimed invention broadly covering devices that do–and do not–solve the problem Read CPLRG™ 0020
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 374 Fed. Appx. 35, CPLRG 0058 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (En Banc). TherasenseEnBancOrder
MAJOR ISSUES: inequitable conduct; unenforceability of patents; fraud. Read CPLRG™ 0058
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., — F.3d —-, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 10590 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (RADER, Newman, Lourie, Linn, Moore & Reyna; O’MALLEY, concurring-in-part & dissenting-in-part; BRYSON, Gajarsa, Dyk & Prost, dissenting) Therasense.05252011.fc
MAJOR ISSUES: inequitable conduct rendering patents unenforceable; raising standards for materiality and intent; “but for” materiality; no “sliding scale”; no materiality required for affirmative egregious misconduct
COMMENTS: In a milestone decision, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reviewed the standard of materiality for the inequitable conduct defense to patent infringement. In a majority opinion for six of the participating eleven judges, Chief Judge Rader “tighten[ed] the standards for finding both intent and materiality in order to redirect a doctrine that has been overused to the detriment of the public.” On intent, the majority (1) rejected a “sliding scale” approach under which “a weak showing of intent may be found sufficient based on a strong showing of materiality, and vice versa,” and (2) restricted the circumstances under which the necessary intent to deceive the PTO may be inferred. On materiality, the majority (1) adopted a “but-for” standard of materiality, (2) recognized “an exception in cases of affirmative egregious misconduct,” and (3) eschewed prior decisions that relied on the PTO’s Rule 56 definitions of materiality.
For a preliminary, critical evaluation of Therasense, see below.
CROSS REFERENCES: On the inequitable conduct defense and its history, see Chisum on Patents 19.03. For case law on the defense, see Chisum, Patent Law Digest 4000.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., 595 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER & Clark, district judge; LOURIE, concurring “in the result”; CLARK, concurring)
MAJOR ISSUES: (1) claim construction; claim phrase limited by discussion in specification; doctrine of equivalents; prosecution history estoppel; (2) definiteness; “short period of time”; (3) priority for provisional application; disclosure of species showing possession of readily understandable genus; (4) inventor’s contracting for software services; no Section 102(b) “on sale” bar Read CPLRG™ 0026
