Utility Patent Cases
Clear all
Coverage since November 3, 1994

Utility Patent

Uncategorized

Digital Control Inc. v. Charles Machine Works — Multiple Materiality Standards Coexist for Inequitable Conduct; False Rule 131 Declarations Are Inherently Material

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in a horizontal directional drilling patent case, holding that the 1992 PTO Rule 56 materiality standard supplements rather than replaces the earlier ‘reasonable examiner’ standard, that false statements in a Rule 131 declaration are inherently ma

Uncategorized

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. — Written Description Requirement Invalidates Claims Broader Than Disclosed Embodiment

The Federal Circuit held that patent claims covering all methods of achieving a technical result are invalid for insufficient written description when the specification discloses only one specific method, warning inventors that the scope of claims must be commensurate with what was actually disclose

Uncategorized

In re Fisher — Expressed Sequence Tags Lack Patentable Utility Without Identification of the Functions of the Underlying Genes

The Federal Circuit affirmed rejection of patent claims covering expressed sequence tags (ESTs) — partial gene sequences — for lack of utility under § 101, holding that ESTs that serve only as research tools without identification of the functions of their corresponding genes do not have the specifi

Uncategorized

Seachange International v. C-COR Inc. — Prosecution Disclaimer Applies to All Claims Grouped Together in Prosecution, Even If Argument Was Made Only for One Claim

The Federal Circuit reversed an infringement judgment in a video-on-demand patent case, holding that the applicant’s prosecution argument distinguishing the prior art based on ‘point-to-point’ network interconnections created a prosecution disclaimer that limited all claims grouped

Scroll to Top