March 7th, 2013
Under current case law, the doctrine of joint infringement may be established through direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), or may be established though inducement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b). Akamai Tech. v. Limelight Networks, 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Mckesson Tech. v. Epic Systems […] Read More
Read MoreOctober 20th, 2011
Arguments made to the PTO during reexamination can amend the scope of claims and trigger absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate. In Marine […] Read More
Read MoreSeptember 29th, 2011
In Ultramercial, the CAFC held that a method claim for distributing copyrighted products over the Internet was patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 due to the programing complexity required to carry out the claimed elements. Although the CAFC mentioned the “machine or transformation test,” […] Read More
Read MoreSeptember 23rd, 2011
When drafting claims practitioners often struggle defining limiting terms such as “a,” “at least one,” and “one.” However, the key to defining these terms may be to focus less on the term itself and focus more on the context surrounding the term. For example, the […] Read More
Read More