About
CAFC Blog (www.cafcblog.com), an Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP resource, keeps practitioners up-to-date on the most recent IP decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. About Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP For more than...
Authors
The contributors to this blog are Andrews Kurth Kenyon Intellectual Property attorneys from throughout the country. Their backgrounds and areas of concentration allow them to provide comprehensive analyses of recent Federal Circuit Court opinions.  ...

Patent Claims Directed to Streaming Audio/Visual Data Service Found to Be Ineligible Subject Matter Under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

TWO-WAY MEDIA LTD. v. COMCAST CABLE COMMC’N.: Nov. 1, 2017. Before Lourie, Reyna, and Hughes.   Takeaway: Claims directed to a streaming audio/visual data service are ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 if the claims are only directed to abstract ideas and contain no additional elements that transform …

Erectile Dysfunction Drug-Patent Found Obvious

BAYER PHARMA AG, v. WATSON LABS, INC.: Nov. 1, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore, and O’Malley   Takeaway: The CAFC will reverse a finding of non-obviousness where key references are missing from a district court’s opinion and mere concerns over effectiveness do not rise to the level of teaching away. Procedural Posture: Alleged …

Federal Circuit Reverses Finding of Indefiniteness for Claiming Both an Apparatus and a Method

MASTERMINE SOFTWARE, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORP.: Oct. 30, 2017. Before Newman, O’Malley, Stoll.   Takeaway: System claims containing functional language are not indefinite for covering both an apparatus and a method if the claims merely use permissible functional language to describe the capabilities of the claimed system. Procedural Posture: Alleged Infringer …

PTAB’s Adoption of Petitioner’s Arguments Regarding Modification of a Prior Art Reference Held Minimally Sufficient to Support its Obviousness Determination

IGNITE USA, LLC v. CAMELBAK PRODS., LLC: October 12, 2017 (non-precedential). Before Prost, Wallach, and Taranto.   Takeaway: PTAB’s adoption of Petitioner’s obviousness arguments in its opinion was “sufficient, if minimally,” to explain the connection between its factual findings and legal conclusion of obviousness. Procedural Posture: CamelBak Products, LLC petitioned for …

R&H’s Processes for Preparing Emulsion Polymers with Improved Opacity Not Invalid over the Prior Art that Does Not Include a “Swelling Agent” Narrowly Construed by the PTAB

ORGANIK KIMYA AS v. ROHM AND HAAS COMPANY: October 11, 2017. Before Prost, Newman, and Taranto.   Takeaway: Where a patent specification uses the word ‘include’ immediately followed by the phrase ‘are those which,’ the element is properly limited to the embodiments “which exhibit the functional characteristics thereafter described.” Procedural …

Disclaimer

Unless otherwise indicated, lawyers listed on this blog are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. A past performance or prior result is no guarantee of a similar future result in another case or matter. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is responsible for the content of this blog and monitors comments. Andrews Kurth, the Andrews Kurth logo, Straight Talk is Good Business and Intelligent Energy are registered service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon and the Andrews Kurth Kenyon logo are service marks of Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP. Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP is a Texas limited liability partnership. Andrews Kurth Kenyon (UK) LLP is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority of England and Wales (SRA Registration No.598542). Andrews Kurth (Middle East) DMCC is registered and licensed as a Free Zone company under the rules and regulations of DMCCA. Attorney Advertising. Neither the content on this website and/or blog nor any transmissions between you and Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP through this website and/or blog are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship. In communicating with us through this website and/or blog, you should not provide any confidential information to us concerning any potential or actual legal matter that you may have. Before providing any such information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of our lawyers. By commenting on this website and/or blog (and thereby choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval), you understand and agree that Andrews Kurth Kenyon LLP will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.