skip to content »

vdv345polk.ru

Invalidating patent

invalidating patent-80

, a high-stakes dispute that directly challenges Congress’ constitutional authority to enact the administrative process of inter partes review.

invalidating patent-34invalidating patent-7invalidating patent-3

The court also noted that the plaintiffs are not precluded from arguing that no construction of a term is necessary and the court's order is intended "to assist the District Judge in resolving claim construction issues." It will be interesting to see if any other judges start to require parties to disclose what they contend a "plain meaning" construction to be, even if the court may ultimately determine the claim term at issue needs no construction. Disclaimer: This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is personal to the author without sponsorship by any organization and represents his personal views; the Blog does not necessarily reflect the views of any colleague, organization or client thereof. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information.Since that decision, only four new patent cases have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas (all filed last Friday, May 26). 24, 2017) In this case, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's claim construction requiring that the claimed "pump" and "valve" be physically separate structures in a patent related to a system for simulating trauma with lifelike mannequins.Below is a chart showing the number of new patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas each week of 2017: (Fed. The claims at issue required "at least one valve in fluid communication with said pump." The district court construed "valve" as "a device that regulates, directs, or adjusts the flow of fluid through a passageway by opening, closing, or restricting the passageway." The district court construed "pump" as "a device that moves or transfers fluid by mechanical action." In deciding summary judgment of non-infringement, the district court held that there was no literal infringement of this claim element because the valves in the accused device were not physically separate from the pump, and instead resided within the pump housing.Petitioner Oil States sued respondent Greene’s Energy, contending that Greene’s Energy was infringing a patent that Oil States holds on technology useful for preserving wellhead equipment in the oil and gas industry.Predictably, Greene’s responded by seeking inter partes review, hoping that the PTO would invalidate the Oil States patent.The Federal Circuit also held its construction (allowing for a valve to reside within a pump) was consistent with the district court's constructions of the terms "pump" and "valve": We see no reason why a device that moves fluid cannot contain another device that regulates flow within it.

A pump does not cease moving fluid--i.e., being a "pump"--just because an internal valve adjust fluid flow.

New patent case activity in the Eastern District of Texas remains low, as demonstrated by the chart below, which shows the number of new patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas each week of 2017: decision.

New patent case activity in the Eastern District of Texas remains low, as demonstrated by the chart below, which shows the number of new patent cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas each week of 2017: on May 22, just over a week ago.

The morning brings a pair of cases considering the “inter partes review” process that Congress added to the patent law in 2011 as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.

The adoption of inter partes review implements Congress’ desire to shift a share of patent litigation away from the judicial process – criticized as slow and expensive – toward an administrative process that Congress (with considerable naiveté) expected would be swift, inexpensive and uncontroversial.

The Federal Circuit found this argument supported by the patent specification, which states "[t]he solution of the present invention does not depend on detection of malware at all." In the underlying district court decision, the district court had asked what is happening "in response to the software key logging" if the invention is not responding to malware. In 1990, two years after Congress had amended Section 1391(c), the Federal Circuit held that those amendments made Section 1391(c) applicable to Section 1400(b) and therefore defendants in patent litigation could be sued in "any district where there would be personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant." could shift the focus of patent litigation away from popular districts like the Eastern District of Texas to districts where more companies are actually incorporated or have a significant physical presence, depending on how the Supreme Court rules in this case. On appeal, Impulse argued both that the district court's claim construction was incorrect, and summary judgment of non-infringement should not have been granted under the claim construction adopted by the district court.