Case Law Briefs
Keyword Search
Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC
“A” means one or more, but use of “the” or “said” thereafter indicates a reference back to the previously claimed term and may require a single claim element to be capable of performing all recited functionality.
HIP, INC. v. Hormel Foods Corporation
The high bar for alleging a joint inventor of an issued patent includes a three-part test of whether a person (1) contributed in some significant manner to the conception of the invention; (2) made a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention; and (3) did more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.
Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Dell, Inc.
Description of a computer-readable recording medium including various examples of non-transitory media does not leave the door open for interpreting a claimed “computer-readable recording medium” as encompassing transitory media
Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David A. Tropp (Fed. Cir. 2017)
The Akami V’s two prong-test is the correct standard for divided infringement and should be applied within the context of the specific facts of each case.
Synchronoss Technologies, Inc v. Dropbox, Inc.
If a term is nonsensical, impossible, or lacks sufficient structure in the specification, the claim the term is in will be invalid for indefiniteness.
An entity can be liable for infringement if
1) the entity makes, sells, or offers to sell a product with each and every element of a claim.
2) the entity directs or controls the performance of another entity which together makes, sells, or offers to sell a product with each and every element of a claim.
3) the entity forms a joint enterprise with another entity wherein the joint enterprise makes, sells, or offers to sell a product with each and every element of a claim.
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith et al.
In evaluating fair use of copyrighted works, the purpose and character of the secondary work is defined by the commercial use of the work more than its artistic differences to the original work or desired expression.
Jack Daniel’s Properties, INC. v. VIP Products LLC
1. The First Amendment does not protect the use of a trademark which is used as source identification for a good or service, instead the likelihood of confusion test is generally applied.
2. The Lanham Act’s exclusion from dilution liability for “any non-commercial use of a mark” does not shield an infringer when they use the mark as a designation of source for its goods.
Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al.
If a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire class.