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 …

Contacts with a Forum State that Occurred Prior to the Issuance of a Patent are Not Sufficient to Confer Personal Jurisdiction for a Patent Infringement Case

NEXLEARN, LLC, v. ALLEN INTERACTIONS, INC.: June 19, 2017.  Before Moore, Schall, and Hughes   Takeaway: A defendant’s contacts with a forum state that occurred prior to the issuance of a patent are not sufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction for a patent infringement case after the patent issues. Absent any …

The Board’s Decision Finding Waterproof Leather Claims Unpatentable as Obvious Affirmed by the CAFC, a Person of Ordinary Skill Need Not Have the Same Motivation as the Patent’s Inventor

OUTDRY TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, v. GEOX S.P.A.: No. 2016-1769; June 16, 2017.  Before Dyk, Moore, and Rena. Takeaway: The motivation to combine inquiry is not limited to the problem faced by the inventor of a patent. Procedural Posture: Outdry appealed from the Board’s decision in an IPR finding that claims 1-15 of its …

Unsupported Declaration by an Interested Party is Insufficient to Remove § 102(e) Prior Art Reference

EMERACHEM HOLDINGS, LLC, v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.: No. 2016-1984; June 15, 2017.  Before Moore, Clevenger, and Chen. Takeaway: An uncorroborated declaration by an interested inventor may not be sufficient to show that a reference is not “by another” for the purposes of removing the reference as prior art …

Federal Circuit Upholds Injunction and Comments Upon the Appropriate Test for Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents in Chemical Cases

MYLAN INSTITUTIONAL LLC v. AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD:  May 19, 2017. Before Lourie, Moore and Reyna.   Takeaway: CAFC ruled the district court did not err in granting preliminary injunction because the district court correctly determined defendant was unlikely to prove invalidity of one patent-in-suit, even though the district court did err …