Category Archives: Claim Construction

Patent Office Releases Comments on Standards for Patent Eligibility Examination

On November 2nd, Robert Bahr released a concise but informative memorandum that could be entitled “What We Learned From McRO and BASCOM.” I have posted on McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandi Namco Games America Inc. et al., 120 … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Federal Court, Govt Policy/PTO Policy, Uncategorized, USPTO Practice and Policy | Leave a comment

In re Cuozzo – Still no changes for the claim interpretation standard during inter partes review proceedings

A guest post from Theresa Stadheim, attorney at Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. In In re: Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, Appeal No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015, decision by Dyk), the Federal Circuit decided not to review the Patent Trial … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Pacing Technologies v. Garmin – D&D Explained

In this decision—No. 2014-1396 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 18, 2015)—the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment (a copy can be found at the end of this post) that Garmin’s exercise products do not infringe the claims of Pacing’s US Pat. … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patentable Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

TEVA v. SANDOZ – THE DISSENT AND THE ZONE OF UNCERTAINTY

In Teva v. Sandoz, decided yesterday by a 7-2 decision of the S. Ct., the lengthy dissent by Justices Alito and Thomas invoked the dreaded “zone of uncertainty” – a dangerous bar of shifting legal sands that defendants should not … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment