Receive Email Updates
Certified Licensing Professionals, Inc., 2021
This blog, Patents4Life, does not contain legal advice and is for informational purposes only. Its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship nor is it a solicitation for business. This is the personal blog of Warren Woessner and does not reflect the views of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, or any of its attorneys or staff. To the best of his ability, the Author provides current and accurate information at the time of each post, however, readers should check for current information and accuracy.
- About Me
Warren D. Woessner
Category Archives: Section 112(2) – Indefiniteness
AAM v. Neapco: Method of Manufacturing Claim Gets the 101 Hook(e)
In American Axle and Manufacturing v. Neapco Holdings LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1763 (Fed. Cir., July 31, 2020), a split panel of Judges Dyk, Moore and Taranto, on rehearing, slightly modified their earlier opinion that most of the claims of U.S. … Continue reading
Posted in Section 112(2) - Indefiniteness Tagged Mayo/Alice, s. 101, s. 112 Leave a comment
Promega v. Life Technologies – “Too Much Of Nothing?”
Although much more attention has been focused on the portion of this recent Fed. Cir. decision that held a defendant could “induce itself” into infringement under s. 271(1)(f), by sending one part of a kit to be assembled abroad, the … Continue reading
Nautilus v. Biosig – Solving Insoluble Ambiguity?
Today the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Fed. Cir.’s standard for resolving challenges to validity under s.112 para.2, based on whether or not a claim was “amenable to construction” and not “insolubly ambiguous”. Noting that Nautilus had urged that a patent … Continue reading
Posted in Section 112(2) - Indefiniteness Tagged Biosig, Federal Circuit, Markman, Mayo v Prometheus, Nautilus, Supreme Court 1 Comment