(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
-
- CAFC provides a mixed infringement decision for claims involving "various intravascular blood pump systems and methods for providing heart support using intravascular blood
pump systems." Notably, CAFC disagrees with the DCT that various claim term interpretations were disclaimed "in related inter partes review proceedings, requiring “a narrower construction”" ("In
those IPR proceedings, Maquet distinguished its “elongate
lumen” claims from a prior art source, Jegaden,3 by arguing that “Jegaden provides a separate device—a catheter
with a guide wire—to guide an unmodified device into a
patient . . . Although
statements made by a patent owner during inter partes review can be relied on to support a finding of prosecution
disclaimer . . . “to invoke the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, any such statements must ‘be both clear and unmistakable’” . . . Maquet’s
argument that Jegaden discloses using a separate catheter, which allegedly teaches away from modifying a cannula to accommodate a side lumen, does not rise to the requisite level of being “‘words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction’ in the intrinsic record.”"). Accordingly, CAFC vacates this portion of the decision below. However, CAFC agrees with the DCT that "guide mechanism" is a means-plus-function term ("[C]laim 16 is expressed solely in
functional terms—that is, the guide mechanism has the
function of “guid[ing] said intravascular blood pump and cannula to a predetermined location within the circulatory
system of a patient.”"), with the DCT's identification of corresponding structures in the specification, and with the DCT's conclusion that the target device does not infringe this structure ("the district court did not err in determining
that the Impella devices do not infringe claims 16 and 17
of the ’100 patent because no reasonable jury could have
found that Abiomed’s Impella devices contain a “guide
mechanism” under structure (b)"). Ergo, affirmed as to those portions.
-
- In this precedential decision, CAFC reopens the Alice analysis and finds the claims involving "a wireless device receiving from the server page descriptions and configuration
data in a language readable by the device and at least
partly within the device’s rendering capabilities, allowing
the device to display the desired content."
-
- CAFC affirms 101 invalidity on claims "directed to the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing, retrieving, and displaying information,” specifically
by: “(1) collecting product-related information; (2) analyzing the product information (i.e., cross-referentially linking
the products); (3) receiving a product-location inquiry;
(4) retrieving product-location information in response to
the query; and (5) presenting the product-location information plus some additional information." CAFC iterates through the various claim elements, but doesn't find any elements reciting more than generic technical character ("Even though claim 1 of the ’933 patent requires
a “mobile device” and an “information storage device,” it
does not alter the analysis"). Specifications presenting technical problem-solutions sometimes save these cases, but CAFC finds no such mitigating statements here ("[T]he specification focuses on how to solve a business
problem using off-the-shelf technology, rather than an improvement to computer technology."). Finding no contrary indications at Step 2 ("Innovaport has not identified any inventive
concept arising from any claims, individually or in an ordered combination."), CAFC affirms.
-
- CAFC affirms Alice 101 JMOL invalidity (not 12b6?) for claims "generally directed to methods [and
systems] for content sharing using uniquely generated
identifiers." CAFC agrees with the DCT's characterization that the claims are directed to "the abstract idea of “sharing content using a unique identifier”" ("The use of location or proximity
information merely limits when or with whom content is
shared, which does not render the claims any less abstract,
but instead reflects the application of an abstract idea
using generic networking components operating in their
conventional manner."). As for Step 2, CAFC likewise agrees with the DCT ("The asserted reliance on location information and a purported “hybrid architecture,” Q Tech Op. Br. 51, does not
transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter, as the claims do not recite any nonconventional implementation or improvement in computer functionality itself."). Ergo, affirmed.
-
- CAFC affirms this noninfringement decision, first agreeing with the construction ("We reject Little Giant’s invitation to rewrite the construction, because the district court adopted the parties’
“essentially agreed-upon” construction of the claimed “cavity” as a “hollowed-out space (not passing all the way
through) . . . neither the examiner’s
statement, the claims, nor the specification support Little
Giant’s assertion"), then agreeing with the DCT's expert exclusion ("Mr. Smith contradicted the court’s construction by “essentially reconstru[ing] the cavity limitation to mean any hollowed-out space that does not pass through in every direction.”"), and also agreeing with the DCT's DOE preclusion analysis:
"[T]he examiner
rejected the claim language . . . over a prior art reference . . . In response, the applicant amended claim 1 to recite “the first
bracket is disposed within a cavity defined by the first component” . . . In
view of this narrowing amendment, we agree with the district court that the surrendered territory is between “designs where the bracket is concealed between the handle
and the rails” and “where it is disposed within a cavity of
the handle” . . . the [allegedly infringing device's] handle’s wing space
does fall within this surrendered territory because there
“the majority of the bracket is concealed between the handle and the rail simply because that concealment occurs by
placing substantial portions of the bracket inside a space
that is not a cavity.”"
Ergo, affirmed.
James Skelley is a solo practitioner based in Mountain View, California since 2015, focusing primarily upon technology transactions and intellectual property procurement. James' practice also serves as an "incubator" for new legal service technologies / methodologies and a "living example" of their application. To this end, James regularly partners with larger law firms and with his clients so as to improve the practice of intellectual property law.
- Utility / Design / PCT Patent Prosecution
- Open Source Diligence
- Technology Transactions (typically as a team)
- Litigation / Inter Partes Review Support (typically as a team)
- James tends NOT to handle low-volume trademark work (though referrals are available)
- USPTO - #59458 - 10/16/2006
- California - #257829 - 12/01/2008
- District Columbia - #1014986 - 08/05/2013
- James is available by email, 8x8 hangout, and in-person meetups in the Valley.
- Email is typically the best way to reach James.
- Machine Learning / Robotics
- Cryptograpy / Cryptocurrency / Smart Contracts
- Medical Device
- Computational Biology (primarily modeling and proteomics)
- Signal Processing (primarily wireless and compression)
- Quantum Physics (primarily semiconductor) / Electromagnetics (antennae, waveguides, etc.)
- Manufacturing / 3D Printing
- James tends NOT to handle pure chemistry applications (though referrals are available), however James HAS handled matters involving computational proteomics, cellular modeling, and diagnostic lab protocols
LawMux Bites are (very) short, one-page summaries of various legal concepts, cases, and technologies. As informal summaries, you certainly shouldn't rely upon them as legal advice / for business use, but they can help orient you if you're new to the subject matter.
