Patent Law Practice Center

CAFC Reverses USPTO Anti-Patentee Reissue Policy: In re Tanaka

At issue in the In re Tanaka case is whether the addition of narrower, dependent claims in patent reissue is an “error” that the reissue statute is supposed to address.  On April 15, 2011, the CAFC  ruled that this is in fact permissible “error” contemplated by the patent reissue statute.  Charles Gorenstein, Partner at Birch Stewart Kolasch & Birch, sent in this article discussing the In re Tanaka decision.

In a decision dated April 15, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences by which the USPTO attempted to limit the rights of patentees to file for reissue of patents.  In re Tanaka, Appeal No. 2010-1262, April 15, 2011.  Had it been permitted to stand, the underlying Board decision would have, additionally, cast a cloud over the validity and value of many already-issued patents

Tanaka filed an application for reissue of his patent.  Ultimately, the correction sought to be made was the addition of a single dependent claim, narrower in scope than the existing patent claims, while retaining all of the original patent claims (and making no changes to the specification or drawings).  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals and Interferences (the Board) ruled that this was not proper pursuant to the reissue statute, 35 U.S.C. §251.  The Board reasoned that if nothing was to be changed in the original patent claims, specification or drawings, the patent could not be deemed “wholly or partly inoperative or invalid” as set forth in §251.  While The Board acknowledged, at least implicitly, that the failure to include an additional narrower claim in the patent might be an error without deceptive intention, it was not an error of such a nature that could be corrected by reissue. (more…)

Three References PLUS Predictable Variation Doom Utility Lighter Claims

Written by Brandon Baum , of baum legal and Practice Center Contributor.

Some have suggested that the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Tokai Corp. v. Easton Enterprises, Inc., No. 2010-1057, -1116 (Fed. Cir. Jan 31, 2011), signals a raising of the bar to show nonobviousness post-KSR.  See, e.g., Quinn, KSR Fears Realized: CAFC Off the Obviousness Deep End; Patently-O, The Teeth of KSR: Obviousness on Summary Judgment.  This author disagrees.

The technology at issue in Tokai is straightforward: a child-safety mechanism for use on a “utility lighter,” the type of lighter used to light a barbecue or pilot light. The safety mechanism consists of a spring-loaded locking lever that must be unlocked with one finger while simultaneously depressing the trigger to light the flame with another.  Although two-finger safety mechanisms had been used in prior art cigarette lighters, they had never been used with a utility lighter prior to the patentee’s application. Nevertheless, the panel majority of Judges Lourie and Bryson upheld the district court’s determination on summary judgment that the patents-in-suit were obvious. (more…)

A New Doctrine of Equivalents? CAFC Defines “Use” Under §271

Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor, passed along this article on the recent Federal Circuit decision Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc..  In the article, Quinn discusses the opinion and questions whether it will “breathe new life into the doctrine of equivalents” given the Court’s determination of the meaning of “use” of a system as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. 271 (a).

On January 20, 2011 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International, Inc., in which the district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Of particular note here is the determination of the meaning of “use” as that term is used in 35 U.S.C. 271(a). The Federal Circuit, per Judge Moore (with Judges Lourie and Linn joining) acknowledged that the Court has never directly addressed the issue of infringement for “use” of a system claim that includes elements in the possession of more than one actor, thereby making the specific issue a question of first impression. (more…)

US Supreme Court Accepts Microsoft Appeal in i4i Case

The following was sent in by Gene Quinn, of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft Corporation v. i4i Limited Partnership, with Chief Justice John Roberts taking no part in the decision or petition. The Supreme Court did not request the views of the Solicitor General, choosing rather to accept the matter with no input from the United States government.  The decision to grant cert. comes only days after the United States Patent and Trademark Office refused to grant reexamination of the patent in question.

Microsoft had filed an ex parte reexamination request on the patent in question, US Patent No. 5,787,449. The ‘449 patent exited reexamination unchanged. Microsoft then filed a second ex parte reexamination request, and it is this second request that was denied by the Patent Office on Wednesday, November 24, 2010. The denial of this second request means that the Patent Office did not believe there to be a substantial new question of patentability. (more…)

Reexamination Request Against Honeywell’s HFC Patent Among Those Filed Week of October 4th

Here is this week’s  installment of Reexamination Requests from our friends at Reexamination Alert….

Honeywell has obtained a number of patents in recent years for hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) patents.  HFCs are environmentally friendly alternatives to the hydrochlorofluorocarbons for use in aerosols and refrigerants.  Inter partes Request No. 2 below challenges Honeywell’s patent.

A request was also filed against Medicis’ patent (Ex parte Request No. 9) for foaming pad containing benzoyl peroxide, used to treat acne.  The ‘355 patent is the subject of a contentious case in Arizona, filed earlier this year. (more…)