Scott Rennie

Intellectual Property (21 summaries)

Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

The definition of a term claimed in one applicant's original prosecution was treated as intrinsic evidence when construing the claim of the same term in another applicant's application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Claim Construction

Medtronic Corevalve, L.L.C. v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Priority was not established when an applicant did not list all previous amended and foreign applications on every intervening application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Invalidity

Institut Pasteur v. Focarino

The board must give full consideration to resources which teach away from claimed inventions outcome.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Biological Patents

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v Tolmar, Inc.

When the result was a matter of degree and was not different in kind, obviousness was found.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Obviousness

Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the causal nexus required for injunction on a patent-by-patent basis.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Remedies

Intellect Wireless, Inc. V HTC Corp.

Applicant must inform PTO of the precise claim location of a misstatement when correcting a misstatement during prosecution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Inequitable Conduct

SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.

In determining whether manufacturing processes are similar enough to support an infringement claim, expert analysis can be used.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infringment

Bowman v. Monsanto, Co.

Remanufacturing or copying an article is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Patent Exhaustion

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

Means-plus-function descriptions are limited by clearly linked corresponding structure descriptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Claim Interpretation

Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn, Inc.

PATENTS; INDUCED INFRINGEMENT: Datasheets and other markings on patented material showed actual knowledge required to prove induced infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Animal tests of multiple animals are not required for enablement purposes of pharmaceutical patents, so long as the claim reflects varied effects on different species.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

General Electric Co. v. Wilkins

The Clear and Convincing evidentiary standard required to rebut the presumption of patent validity will not be met when the key corroborative witness testimony is predicated on the challenging party’s own sequence of events.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Technology Patents, LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.

Doctrine of Equivalents will not broaden claims beyond their explicit terms.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

In re Applied Materials, Inc.

Simple determination of optimum ranges for operation, and development of more comprehensive explanations of variable relationship based on broad ranges of prior art, does not qualify as non-obvious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v emsCharts, Inc.

Clear and convincing evidence cannot be established upon successful claim reexamination when material is not deemed "but-for" material.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

InterDigital Communications, LLC. v. International Trade Commission

The differentiation doctrine presumption is particularly strong in cases where a limitation is the sole differentiation between claims and one party is asserting a dependent claim on an independent claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Copyright covers only the specific writing of program code, not program function, or presentation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

In re Youman

The Patent and Trademark Office must determine whether the narrowing language related to surrendered subject matter.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.

In discerning obviousness, the court looks to whether one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable motivation to modify the earlier claimed compound to make the compound of the asserted claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Undisclosed prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Ergo Licensing, LLC v CareFusion 303, Inc.

Means-plus-function terms are required to point out the particular structure used to perform the function, lest it be deemed “indefinite.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents