Here are a couple of recent cases involving claim construction issues. In both, the patent owner tried to argue that a term meant something different than what seemed to be the term’s plain meaning. In re Transaction Holdings Ltd., No. 2011–3061 (Apr. 23, 2012) (Judges Bryson, Schall, and Prost) (nonprecedential) This case combines an appeal […]
Category: Matt’s Posts
Compelling Patent Arbitration — You Have to Talk to Me Sooner or Later
When companies merge and split, it can be confusing to figure out where IP rights have gone. Although this case is technically about a motion to compel arbitration, it’s really about following the trail of assignments.
Charm’s Offensive
This case reminds me of a scene from the movie Harvey. Jimmy Stewart plays Elwood P. Dowd, and it’s one line of his in particular that seems appropriate.
Someone Has a Drinking Problem
Learning Curve Brands v. Munchkin, Inc., No. 2011–1036 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2012) (Judges Bryson, Mayer, and Moore) (non-precedential) The case started when Learning Curve successfully sued Munchkin for infringing its sippy cups patents in 2007. Munchkin changed its design, going with screw-on lids, replacing the snap-on lids it had used before. Learning Curve sued […]
You Wouldn’t Sue a Company With Glasses, Would You?
Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., No. 2011–1147 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2012) (Chief Judge Rader, and Circuit Judges Bryson and Reyna) There’s a common stereotype that someone with glasses is less inclined to fight. You wouldn’t know it from this case. These eyewear companies have been going at it for over a decade! […]
It’s Time for an Intervention
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc. , No. 2010–1548 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2012) (en banc) We first wrote about this case last year. The issue is a pretty narrow one: if a patent owner doesn’t have to literally amend its claims during a reexamination, can that still create intervening rights? That is, can argument alone […]