Monthly Archives: May 2013

Claims that are Too Obvious, Too Broad

I agree with the decision and the dissent in the 1 May 2013 opinion (PDF) from the Federal Circuit in Allergan, Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., et al. (appeal no. 11-1619). The court overturned the lower court and invalidated as obvious nearly all of the claims. The claims of the four issued patents on appeal attempted […]

Read More

Fair Use to Use Copyrighted Scientific Articles at the US Patent Office

Yesterday, 22 May 2013, U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn gave a bench ruling in American Institute of Physics et al. v. Winstead PC et al., case number 3:12-cv-01230, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. She indicated that the practice of the law firm, Winstead, of making limited copies of articles […]

Read More

Some Ambiguity is Allowed in Patent Claims

On 26 April 2013, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (appeal no. 12-1289) and gave some explanation about the amount of indefiniteness allowable in patent claims. Procedurally, Biosig sued Vancouver, Wash.-based Nautilus for patent infringement in 2004 based on its U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753. The ‘753 patent covered […]

Read More