federal circuit

Federal Circuit

reverses district court on



The Federal Circuit has reversed a district court’s ruling that a patent’s claims were indefinite and thus that the patent was invalid.

Sonix Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Publ’ns Int’l, Ltd. is a case involving Sonix’s patent for a system and method for using a “graphical indicator” (e.g., a matrix of small dots) to encode information on the surface of an object.

Read the full article →

"On-Sale" Bar Doesn’t Apply to Sales to Inventor

by AEON Law on November 23, 2016

"On-Sale" bar can stop

a patent being issued —

but what is a "sale"?

source:  https://pixabay.com/en/discount-sale-shopping-149600/

The "on-sale bar" is a limitation on the patentability of an invention under 35 U.S. Code § 102, which says:

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;

Read the full article →

Federal Circuit

Finds that lip sync software claims

aren’t really abstract

By © copyright Blender Foundation / www.sintel.org, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=12855659

The Federal Circuit has ruled that the claims of software patents for synchronizing the lip movements of animated characters are not abstract.

The case of McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America involved methods for 3-D animation.

The “neutral model” of an animated character’s face shows the neutral, resting facial expression. Other models of the face are called “morph targets.” Each one represents the face as it makes a certain sound.

Read the full article →

Federal Circuit Says that PTAB Misused "Common Sense"

by AEON Law on September 16, 2016

What is "common sense"

when it comes to patent law?

Read on to find out…

By Scanned by uploader, originally by Thomas Paine. – http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/history/common-sense-larger.html, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=112772

The Federal Circuit, in the case of Arendi SARL v Apple Inc., recently reversed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The decision was unusual in that reversals in inter partes review proceedings are rare, and also in that it turned on the issue of "common sense."

Read the full article →

Employment contract

Doesn’t prevent inventor

assigning patents

Illustrative photo. By Tetra Pak – http://www.flickr.com/photos/tetrapak/5956902625/, CC BY-SA 2.0,

It’s very common for an employment agreement to include an "invention assignment." (This can also be a stand-alone agreement or combined with an NDA.)

An invention assignment, which might also be called an intellectual property (IP) assignment, assigns the ownership of any invention or other intellectual property created by the employee to the employer.

Read the full article →

Co-Inventors Must Be Named, Even When Contributions Are Minimal

Federal Circuit: Co-inventors must be named, added to patents   By Fletcher6 – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9420546 The Federal Circuit recently ruled that all co-inventors must be named on issued patents, even when their contributions to an invention are minimal. The case, Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead, involved patents for the removal of […]

Read the full article →

Federal Circuit Limits Application of "On-Sale Bar"

Federal Circuit decision on "on-sale bar" is good for start-ups By Joanne Mitchell – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=45258994 A recent decision by the Federal Circuit limits the application of the "on-sale bar" and could be good for startups and other small businesses. Under US patent law (35 U.S.C. § 102), an invention isn’t […]

Read the full article →

USPTO Releases Latest Updates on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

USPTO Updates subject matter guide, Helps examiners   The United States Patent Office (USPTO) recently issued its latest update to its guidelines on patent subject matter eligibility. These guidelines help patent examiners decide whether or not the claims of a patent applicable describe an invention that’s actually eligible for a patent.

Read the full article →

Ultramercial Effect

Federal circuit Offers clarification On software patents The Federal Circuit has sent a software patent case back to the District Court for the Central District of California, holding that the lower court erred in holding that the subject matter of the patent is not a “process” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Read the full article →

Prediction: Supreme Court to embrace software patents

Last year, Axios’s managing partner, Adam Philipp, cautioned that Bilski hardly spelled the demise of software patents. And now I’m predicting that the Supreme Court is about to overturn Bilski and emphasize that software is still patentable in the process. Allow me to explain . . .

Read the full article →