Posts Tagged ‘theresa Stadheim’

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

Monday, July 13th, 2015

iStock_000040556240_SmallA 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 and Appeal Board (the “Board”) practice of construing patents under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard.

Garmin petitioned the Board for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 10, 14 and 17 of Cuozzo’s U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (the ‘074 patent). Garmin contended that claim 10 was invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) or as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and that claims 14 and 17 were obvious under § 103(a). Claim 10 recited:

A speed limit indicator comprising:
a global positioning system receiver;
a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver, wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s present location; and
a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.


Federal Court Affirms BPAI in Dawson v. Dawson and Bowman

Wednesday, March 27th, 2013

This is a guest post from Theresa Stadheim of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

In Chandler Dawson v. Chandler Dawson and Lyle Bowman, Appeal Nos. 2012-1214,-1215,-1216, -1217 (Fed. Cir. March 25, 2013) (a copy can be found at the end of this post), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) interference decision that Chandler Dawson was not the sole inventor of the inventions covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,239,113 (“the ‘113 patent”) and U.S. patent No. 6,569,443 (“the ‘443 patent”).

Chandler Dawson was an employee of UCSF in the summer of 1997 when he gave a presentation to the World Health Organization (WHO) about topical use of an antibiotic for treating eye infections.  During the presentation and during subsequent presentations and discussions about the antibiotic, Dawson stated that he was having trouble formulating a delivery mechanism for the eye drug.  After a delivery mechanism was created, without the assistance of Dawson, Dawson and another party, Dr. Lyle Bowman, filed patent applications assigned to InSite that later issued as the ‘113 patent and the ‘443 patent.  UCSF then filed a patent application, essentially copying the ‘113 and ‘443 patent specification and claims and naming Dawson as the sole inventor, to provoke an interference proceeding.  The issue in the interference proceedings came down to a determination of who conceived of the inventions, and when they conceived of the inventions.


In Re Hubbell

Wednesday, March 20th, 2013

Guest post by Theresa Stadheim of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner)

In In Re Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall, Appeal No. 2011-1547 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2013) (a copy can be found at the end of this post), the Federal Circuit affirmed a Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision that claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 10/650,509 (the ‘509 application”) were obvious under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.

The invention disclosed in the ‘509 application was based on research by Jeffrey Hubbell and Jason Schense while they were employed at California Institute of Technology (“CalTech”).  The ‘509 application was assigned to CalTech.  Hubbell left CalTech and joined the faculty of Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule Zurich (“ETHZ”) five years before the ‘509 application was filed.  An application that later issued as patent number 7,601,685 (“the ‘685 patent”) was based on research by Hubbell and Schense at ETHZ.  The ‘695 patent was assigned to ETHZ and Universitat Zurich.  The ‘509 application was rejected by the Examiner for obviousness-type double patenting over the ‘685 patent and other patents.  (A copy of the ‘509 application as published and the ‘685 patent can be found at the end of this post).  The BPAI affirmed the rejection, rejecting Hubbell’s argument that common ownership is required for obviousness-type double patenting.


Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech – Doctrine of Equivalents on Review

Thursday, February 21st, 2013

Contributed by Theresa Stadheim of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner

In Brilliant Instruments, Inc., v. Guidetech, LLC, Appeal no. 2012-1018 (Fed. Cir. February 20, 2013) (a copy can be found at the end of this post), a panel of the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Northern District of California’s summary judgment that Brilliant Instruments, Inc. (“Brilliant”) did not infringe GuideTech’s patents: 6,226,231 (the ‘231 patent), 6,091,671 (the ‘671 patent) and 6,181,649 (the ‘649 patent). (A copy of each patent can be found at the end of this post.)

One issue was whether there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Brilliant infringed the ‘671 and the ‘649 patents under the doctrine of equivalents.  The particular claim limitation at issue recited in claim 1 of the ‘671  patent: “wherein said shunt and said capacitor are operatively disposed in parallel with respect to said first current circuit.”