Posts Tagged ‘Federal Circuit’

C.I.T. v. Hughes Comm. – Survival Guide for Software?

Thursday, November 13th, 2014

On November 3, 2014, in Cal. Inst. Of Tech. v. Hughes Communications., 2014 U.S.. Dist. LEXIS 156763 (C.D. Cal. 2014), Judge Mariana Pfaelzer penned the most thorough defense of software claims attacked under s. 101 that I have seen since State Street Bank. The opinion is also useful since it both continuously cites – and often distinguishes or explains Mayo—and because it is very critical of the analytical framework employed by the same court in McRO (Planet Blue) v Namco, a September decision on which I posted earlier. (A copy of this decision can be found at the end of this post.)

The heart and soul of the opinion is the Judge’s dismissal of the “point-of-novelty” approach that she finds was used in McRO, as opposed to “purpose” test that she applies in this opinion:


Genetic Technologies v. Bristol Myers – 101 At Work

Wednesday, November 5th, 2014

In the recent memorandum opinion, the court invalidated claim 1 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,612,179, owned by Genetic Technologies, Ltd., as “impermissibly [claiming] a natural phenomenon.” (Genetic Technologies, Ltd. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, C.A. No. 12-394-LPS (D. Delaware, Oct. 30, 2014), copy of which can be found at the end of this post).

If you have been following the Mayo/Myriad/Intema trail of tears, you could probably write 98% of this opinion “from memory.” A number of aspects of this very lengthy and predictable opinion stand out, however.

The claims were directed to a method of detection of at least one coding region allele of a multi-allelic genetic locus by amplifying genomic DNA via PCR, with a primer pair that spans a non-coding region sequence. The primer pair defines a DNA sequence which is in genetic linkage with the genetic locus and contains a sufficient number of non-coding region sequence nucleotides so that PCR produces an amplified DNA sequence characteristic of said allele; “and analyzing the amplified DNA sequence to detect the allele.” The claim was based on the discovery that there can be a correlation between variations in non-coding introns and coding region alleles; that is, that SNPs in non-coding DNA regions can also be in linkage disequilibrium with SNPs in coding regions of DNA . The genotypes of two SNPS in non-coding regions and two SNPs in a coding region are correlated so that the SNPs in the non-coding region can serve as “surrogate markers’ for the SNPs in the coding region.


American Calcar v. Amer. Honda Motor Co. – Therasense Goes Out For a Test Drive

Tuesday, September 30th, 2014

On Friday, in American Calcar v. Amer. Honda Motor Co., App. No. 2013-1061 (Fed. Cir., September 26, 2014) a divided Fed. Cir. panel affirmed the district court’s ruling, following remand, that three patents on a multimedia system for vehicle information and control were invalid due to inequitable conduct (IC) by Calcar’s founder, Mr. Obradovich. The patents were all part of one family and the “priority patent” is U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,355. The primary evidence of inequitable conduct was the failure by Obradovich to disclose the owner’s manual of an Acura model that Calcar used as the basis of its specification. (A copy of the decision can be found at the end of this post.)

The Fed. Cir. had reversed the court’s earlier finding of inequitable conduct for a number of reasons, including judicial error in relying on jury findings of IC rather than ruling from the bench on equitable grounds, applying the “reasonable examiner” standard instead of the “but for” Therasense standard to resolve materiality, and use of a “sliding scale” to find intent based on a strong showing of materiality.


Indefiniteness After Nautilus – A Very “Delicate Balance”

Thursday, September 11th, 2014

In Interval Lighting v. AOL, Inc., Appeal no. 2013-1282, -1283, -1284, -1285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2014), the appealed indefiniteness finding by the district court was affirmed by the Fed. Cir. panel. This was not surprising, since the disputed term was that some sort of extraneous information– like an advertisement – would be displayed on a computer screen during use in an “unobtrusive manner.” This term (one of “degree”) was termed “highly subjective” by the panel, that found that “its scope…depends ‘on the predictable vagaries of any one person’s opinion.’”

Interval Lighting’s last hope was to convince the panel that the term “unobtrusive manner” should be defined by reference to a “narrow example” from the specification, such as displaying the image in a limited area of the screen. However, the relied-upon embodiment was disclosed in the following way: “e.g., the information is presented in areas of a display screen that are not used by displayed information associated with the primary interaction with the apparatus.”