Patent Law Blog

In Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that a prior art reference that teaches every element of a claim may still not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 unless the disclosed elements are also "arranged as in the claim." Read more...

The general rule of thumb is that the attorney is his or her own lexicographer, and that once a term is defined the court will not redraft the scope of the claim language. In other words, courts generally may not re-draft claims; they must construe the claims as written. Read more...

In Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366(Fed. Cir.2009), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals considered an appeal from a district court opinion sustaining a decision by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the "Board"). The case arose out of an interference action. Read more...

In re Natures Remedies, Ltd., 315 Fed. Appx. 300, 2009 WL 615841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), reflects a nonprecedential disposition by the Federal Circuit – affirming a decision by the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("the Board") rejecting a claim (upon reexamination) as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Read more...

Two recent opinions highlight the significant risks associated with "post-judgment" conduct in patent infringement cases. Read more...