AEON law logo on grey background

One of the hidden (literally!) values of method claims

Federal Circuit reminds us why method claims can be so valuable

Yesterday, the Federal Circuit reminded us of another reason why method claims can be so valuable. In Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Rexam Beverage Can Co., No. 08-1284 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17. 2009), the court held, among other things, that a method claim does not require markings to enforce the patent in litigation.

In Crown Packaging, the plaintiff (the patent holder), in brief, did not mark its products with a patent number as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) for most patented products. You’ve seen these markings on, for example, a Starbucks coffee sleeve (Pat. Nos. 5,205,473 and 6,863,644, to be precise).

Nevertheless, the court, consistent with precedent, allowed the patent holder to enforce its method claims. Method claims are used extensively in patents on software products, so this is good news for many of our clients.

For more about the decision, I’d refer you to Patently-O’s post on the case here.

Related Articles

Do AI content generators violate underlying IP rights?

IP owners sue
AI art generators.
What counts as “fair use”?

Read More

Patent Wars Come to Crypto

Brings lawsuit against Circle
In patent dispute

Read More

Is this the end of the employee non-compete?

FTC issues
A notice of rulemaking
To ban non-competes

Read More

Stay Informed

Sign up to receive Patent Poetry—a monthly roundup of key IP issues in our signature haiku format. Four articles (only 68 syllables); zero hassle.