Fletcher YoderEnablement and written description requirements with respect to claims are judged as of the priority date of a patent. A later existing state of art is not considered in the enablement analysis of a claim. Similarly, the written description requirement is in view of what is claimed and whether the specification reasonably conveys possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date of the patent.
In determining obviousness, the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language found in the specification is not altered by use of passive voice and plural language in the claims.
A court considering a co-ownership claim of a past employer on a new invention of a past employee will refer to employment agreement language as well as whether or not the past employer’s claim to contribution was publically available when an application to cover the new invention is filed.
In determining design patent and copyright infringement, the ornamental features and functionality of the claimed design must be distinct from the prior art and must be viewed independently of one another.
Although more evidence is needed than just showing a similarity between a patent and a competitor’s accused product to establish copying, all evidence of objective indicia is vital in determining the obviousness of a patented invention.
Separate patentability of allegedly infringing equivalent of an invention of a patent in suit does not require patentee to prove infringement under doctrine of equivalents by clear and convincing evidence, but rather by a preponderance of evidence.
After a finding of infringement, the district court denied the patentee’s request for an injunction, and instead granted the infringer a compulsory license to permit future infringement.
A plaintiff may bring a Walker Process claim against a patentee based on threatened enforcement of a fraudulently-obtained patent against the plaintiff’s customers.
Essential element of an invention cannot be read into claims without a textual reference for support; Recapture rule is a separate issue from claim construction and should not be used to rewrite claim language to preserve validity