Means-Plus-Function Treatment In Massachusetts Institute of Technology & Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Abacus Software, Corel Corp. & Corel Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Roxio, Inc & MGI Software, Inc., the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The federal circuit court held that the district court erred in its […] Continue Reading →
Protection available for plants under United States law In June, 2006, Patent Attorney and Prof. Edmund J. Sease was invited to Copenhagen, Denmark to speak at the 2006 International Seed Federation’s World Seed Congress. Sease’s presentation focused on the intellectual property rights for plant varieties in the United States. His complete report is available here. Continue Reading →
USPTO to increase Patent Fees The United States Patent & Trademark Office has proposed a 3.5 percent increase for patent statutory fees for 2007. The fee adjustments correspond with the changes in the Consumer Price Index. These price changes will become effective Oct. 1, 2006.To read the complete report, log on tohttp://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/71fr32285.pdf Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit further defends its obviousness standards Later this year, the Supreme Court will address whether the Federal Circuit’s standard for determining whether a patent is obvious is correct. In a recent case, Alza Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc., the Federal Circuit provides a detailed description of why it believes its obviousness test is proper, based on the law and earlier Supreme […] Continue Reading →
Reviewing what is Obvious In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found that a patent for an orthodontic device was invalid due to its obviousness. The patent relates to an apparatus and process for moving teeth from an initial position to a final position.The Federal Circuit began the discussion of obviousness by defining what is prior art. Prior art […] Continue Reading →
The Federal Circuit upholds a ruling for Monsanto seed technology Monsanto sued Mitchell Scruggs and other named defendants (‘Scruggs’) for infringement of its patents on ‘Roundup Ready’ seeds. Scruggs saved and replanted subsequent generations of the Monsanto seeds. Monsanto licenses its biotechnology and Roundup products to seed companies who are allowed to incorporate the biotechnology into its seed’s genetic material (i.e. germplasm) to produce Roundup […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit addresses Festo and the doctrine of equivalents In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit found that a patent holder had not lost its ability to rely upon the doctrine of equivalents for its patent. The patents at issue are owned by Conoco, and relate to processes for making drag reducing agents injected into pipelines to reduce friction and therefore increase pumping efficiency.At […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Strengthens State Protection against Patent Suits The Federal Circuit recently considered two cases where legal action was brought against a state university; one action asserted that a university was infringing a patent, the other was to have a court legally declare whether or not a university’s patents were invalid and thus unenforceable against others. However, both cases were dismissed under the […] Continue Reading →
The Federal Circuit reviews district court ruling over patent validity Pfizer Inc. (‘Pfizer’) sued Ranbaxy Laboratories and Pharmaceuticals (‘Ranbaxy’) alleging that Ranbaxy’s product described in an Abbreviated New Drug Application (‘ANDA’) infringed two patents covering Lipitor, Pfizer’s blockbuster cholesterol-reducing drug, currently the best selling drug worldwide. The district court issued a favorable ruling for Lipitor, by declaring both patents infringed, one patent’s term extension valid, […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Weakens Scope of Plant Variety Protection Act The Federal Circuit recently ruled on a case that implicated two unique areas of intellectual property law: the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and ‘reverse passing off’ under the Lanham Act. The PVPA provides a special kind of protection to plant variety breeders. The protection excludes others from selling the patented variety, offering it for […] Continue Reading →