By Olivier A. Taillieu and Thomas F. Zuber of Zuber & Taillieu LLP
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the holding of Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 435 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and held that the “point of novelty” test should no longer be applied to determine validity of a design patent. In Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v.… More...
In the wake of two recent federal appeals cases -- In re Volkswagen of America Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) – the Eastern District of Texas has lost some of its steam as the most notable “rocket docket” of patent infringement More...
In its highly anticipated en banc opinion in Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the point of novelty test for design patent infringement. The Court held that the “ordinary observer” test set forth in Gorham v. White is More...
The eagerly-awaited decision in In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) -- issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc -- significantly narrowed the scope of patentability for business method and process patents. The Court essentially discounted the More...
In Cohesive Technologies, Inc. v. Waters Corporation, 543 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that an invention may be anticipated, even though it is proven non-obvious. The Court drew a clear separating line between the novelty analysis of 35 U.S.C. More...
In the case Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, ___ U.S. ____, 128 S.Ct. 2109 (2008), the United States Supreme Court clarifies and expands upon its holding in United States v. Univis Lens Co. In Univis, the court held that a patent is exhausted upon the sale of unfinished components that More...
In the recent case of Acumed, LLC v. Stryker Corp.,et al., (No. 2007-1115) (Fed. Cir., May 13, 2008) (“Acumed II”), the Federal Circuit addressed the meaning and application of language barring re-litigation of claims that “could have been brought” in a prior patent infringement case. More...
In KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007), the U.S. Supreme Court broadened the applicable test in determining whether an invention is “obvious.” As predicted by patent law pundits, the KSR decision was followed by a number of cases in which infringers defended their actions – More...
When a patent-holder discovers infringement, it’s not unreasonable for him to want to notify the alleged infringer’s clients of the infringement. Of course the alleged infringer would prefer that this communication with its clients not take place. But, as the Judkins case instructs, it will be More...
In an effort to attack its notorious backlog, the USPTO enacted a group of rule changes that placed limits on, among other things, the number of claims a patent applicant could include and the number of times an applicant could amend and continue his application. Traditionally, patent applicants More...
The decision in McKesson Information Solutions Inc. v. Bridge Medical Inc., 487 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 2007), has been referred to by many as “frightening,” “burdensome,” and “a whopper.” Indeed, the decision places a high burden on patent prosecutors to disclose essentially every action More...
