Patent Law Practice Center

CAFC Reverses Summary Judgment for Lack of Adequate Written Description

In ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, the Federal Circuit recently addressed the sufficiency of a disclosure vis-a-vis the patent claims issued.

The dispute arose when ScriptPro, LLC and ScriptPro USA, Inc. (collectively, “ScriptPro”) sued Innovation Associates, Inc, alleging infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601. The district court granted summary judgment for Innovation Associates, holding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) because the specification describes a machine containing “sensors” and the claims at issue describe a machine that does not need to have “sensors.” ScriptPro appealed and the Federal Circuit, per Judge Taranto (with Judges Bryson and Hughes) reversed, finding summary judgement inappropriate.

Generally speaking, the ’601 patent describes as the invention a “collating unit,” which works with an “automatic dispensing system” that automatically fills and labels pill bottles or other prescription containers. The collating unit has a number of storage positions (e.g., slots) into which containers are placed as they emerge from the dispensing system. The claims at issue do not require “sensors,” although other claims of the ’601 patent do require the use of a “plurality of sensors.”

(more…)

Nintendo Prevails at ITC in Wii Case

On Sept. 12, 2013, Nintendo won a patent infringement case brought at the International Trade Commission by Creative Kingdoms. The commission found that Nintendo’s Wii and Wii U systems do not infringe Creative Kingdoms’ patents. The commission also found that Creative Kingdoms’ patents are invalid.

On April 27, 2011, the Commission instituted the investigation based on a complaint filed by Creative Kingdoms, LLC of Wakefield, Rhode Island and New Kingdoms, LLC of Nehalem, Oregon. The complaint alleged violations of Section 337 by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,500,917 (“the ‘917 patent”), 7,896,742 (“the ‘742 patent”), 7,850,527 (“the ‘527 patent”), and 6,761,637 (the ‘637 patent). The ‘637 patent was subsequently terminated from the investigation. On August 31, 2012, the ALJ issued a final Initial Determination (ID) finding no violation of section 337 by Nintendo.

The ALJ found that the accused products infringe sole asserted claim 24 of the ‘742 patent, but that the claim is invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement and the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The ALJ found that no accused products infringe the asserted claims of the ‘917 patent and the ‘527 patent. The ALJ also found that the asserted claims of the ‘917 and ‘527 patents are invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement and the written description requirement. The ALJ concluded that complainant has failed to show that a domestic industry exists in the United States that exploits the asserted patents as required by 19 U.S.C. § 1337(a)(2). The ALJ did not make a finding regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the asserted patents. The ALJ also did not making a finding with respect to anticipation and obviousness of the asserted patents.

(more…)

Federal Circuit Affirms Tossed $18 Million Jury Verdict

The Patentability Black Hole

Inventors in the unpredictable arts often have to face an unpredictable paradox when patenting an invention.  There seems to be a disconnect between requirements for an inventor to disclose an invention versus the prior art to render an invention unpatentable. Fenwick & West refer to this as the “patentability black hole”.  In this article, Fenwick & West discuss this dilemma and how to solve this patent law paradox.

An inventor faces a number of significant hurdles and pitfalls in patenting his invention. Having a patent specification providing proper and sufficiently thorough disclosure of the invention being claimed by the patentee can, by itself, be a large hurdle, especially in the biosciences where experimental data is essential. Section 112, first paragraph, of Title 35 of the United States Code sets forth the disclosure requirements that all patentees must meet. This section is commonly interpreted as requiring that a patent specification contain a full written description showing that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the patent application was filed (the “written description” requirement) and that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to make and use the invention based on the specification (the “enablement” requirement). See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (2010). (more…)

Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop: Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing

Yesterday, I attended PLI’s Advanced Patent Prosecution Workshop 2011 in New York where an esteemed panel of experts offered hands-on claim drafting and amendment writing techniques.  The program was organized into four technological sections: Biotechnology, Chemical/Pharmaceutical, Electrochemical and Electronics/Computers. I attended the Chemical/Pharmaceutical segment whereJohn Todaro of Merck & Co. discussed advanced issues in drafting of patent specifications.

Here are some highlights from his presentation….

-Draft the claims or Summary of the Invention first, because of the primary role of the patent specification in claim construction

-General Considerations in Drafting the Specification:

1. Distinguish invention from the prior art
2. Define claim terms
3. Provide broadest possible claim scope, while complying with section112 requirements
4. Consider ex-US patent law issues

–Control the length of the application – too long = excess fees. Cost issue is important, think about when drafting the application. (more…)