Category Archives: Patent

Silence Is Not Disclosure

For a patent claim to be entitled to the priority date of an earlier patent application, the earlier patent specification must reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d […]

Read More

“Applied” in a “Wherein” Clause

Courts often will strive to construe ambiguous claim language to avoid indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (a patent’s “specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention”). In University of Massachusetts v. L’Oréal, S.A., No. […]

Read More

“Case” Burned to a Crisp

Patents sometimes issue with typographical errors. Courts may correct “obvious minor typographical and clerical errors in patents,” even if it may structurally alter the patent claim. Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For example, in Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp., 587 F.3d 1339, […]

Read More

Consulting Agreements and Patent Rights

When founders leave their company, they often remain involved as consultants to ensure a smooth transition for the business. These consulting agreements also often include a patent assignment provision where any inventions developed during the consulting period are to be disclosed and assigned to the company. The Eighth Circuit’s decision in Sleep Number Corp. v. […]

Read More