The “ordinary observer” test for design-patent infringement is as follows: [I]f, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the […]
In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. 22-1350, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2023), the Federal Circuit held that a typo in an expert report should not be case dispositive, especially where no party meaningfully raised the typo as relevant. The single typographical error made by Dr. Sasián, on the other hand, was […]
For determining the obviousness of a claimed invention, qualified prior art is that which a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to if it is “analogous to the claimed invention.” In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019) […]
In patent claim construction, the words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). But a claim […]
Obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”) is a judicially-created doctrine that has its roots in 35 U.S.C. § 101, which states that an inventor may obtain “a patent” (i.e., a single patent) for an invention. In re Lonardo, 119 F.3d 960, 965 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ODP “is intended to prevent a patentee from obtaining a time-wise extension […]