ClearPlay, Inc. v. Abecassis, 602 F.3d 1364, CPLRG 0055 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (BRYSON, Archer & Prost) Clearplay04212010
MAJOR ISSUES: Federal Circuit appellate jurisdiction; case not arising under patent law; state law claims arising from dispute over license agreement in settlement of patent infringement suit; claims provable without necessarily resolving patent law issues Read CPLRG™ 0055
Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (DYK, Rader & Gajarsa) Comaper03012010
MAJOR ISSUES: obviousness; inconsistent jury verdicts; independent claim valid but dependent claim invalid; analogous art; expert testimony showing obviousness Read CPLRG™ 0028
Crocs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 598 F.3d 1294, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3793 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (RADER, Lourie & Prost)
MAJOR ISSUES: (1) design patent; infringement; detailed verbal description; error in emphasizing particular details on patented design; (2) utility patent; obviousness; more than combination of prior art elements; more than than predictable results; commercial success; prima facie nexus; industry praise; copying Read CPLRG™ 0024
Cybersource Corp. v. Retailed Decisions, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16871 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (DYK, Bryson & Prost). Cybersource08162011
Major issues: mental steps as unpatentable methods; Section 101; Bilski; claims to computer readable medium with executable programs instructions; Beauregard claims
A Federal Circuit panel, in an opinion by Judge Dyk, held that method claims to a credit card fraud prevention system, which could be carried out by a human mentally or with the aid of pencil, were unpatentably abstract in the Bilski sense. The panel also held claims to “computer reaable medium” for carrying out the methods to be unpatentable.
Cross Reference. For a discussion of the “mental steps” doctrine, see Chisum on Patents Sec. 1.03[6]. Read CPLRG™ 0074
Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (MOORE, Newman & Bryson) Davis03022010
MAJOR ISSUES: patent attorney malpractice; failure to file Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application; federal court jurisdiction; state law requiring proof of “case within a case”; plaintiff’s burden to show invention was patentable Read CPLRG™ 0029
