Utility Patent Cases
Coverage since November 3, 1994

Utility Patent

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

Uncategorized

Playtex Products v. Procter & Gamble — “Substantially” Flattened Surfaces Is a Term of Approximation, Not an Absolute Requirement of Flatness

The Federal Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, holding that the term “substantially flattened surfaces” in a tampon applicator patent means surfaces materially flatter than the cylindrical barrel — not surfaces that are flat within a manufacturing tolerance

Scroll to Top