In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the test for obviousness used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was inconsistent with the Patent Statute and Supreme Court precedent.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's construction of the term "about 1:5" to mean a range of ratios of no greater than 1:3.6 to 1:7.1. Thus, in considering the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence, a ratio of no less than 1:7.5 did not infringe either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. To conclude so would have eviscerated the claim limitation under the doctrine of claim vitiation.

The CAFC Interprets Medimmune and Patentees Face New Problems in Patent Licensing Negotiations.

US Supreme Court Unleashes Patent Licensees.

Trademark Dilution Revision Act Signed Into Law.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court's grant of a summary judgment in favor of Amazon and against IPXL. IPXL's U.S. Patent No. 6,149,055 ('055 patent), asserted against Amazon for patent infringement, was held to be invalid. One of the claims in the '055 patent was held to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112, because the claim recites both apparatus and method of using that apparatus. The Federal Circuit held that the claim is not precise enough to provide competitors with accurate determination of the "metes and bounds" of the claim.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the following question: Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to "correlate" results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result.

Plaintiff's patent is directed to kits for preparing calcium phosphate compositions to be used as "bone cements." The District Court concluded that the claim term "a solution consisting of water and a sodium phosphate" required that the sodium phosphate solution be made from only a single sodium phosphate. Defendant's competing kit was based on a solution prepared from more than one sodium phosphate. The Federal Circuit agreed with the District Court and held that the reference to "a sodium phosphate" in the context of the claim was most naturally understood as a reference to one of the different sodium phosphates. The word "a" was best interpreted in its singular sense because it had been used in conjunction with the closed transitional phrase "consisting of." Moreover, this interpretation was consistent with the prosecution history.

Section 271(f) applies to process claims. Section 271(f) imposes liability for patent infringement against a company which exports from the United States "any component of a patented invention" that is especially made for use in an invention claimed by a U.S. patent. The reference to a "component" had led some courts to conclude that this provision does not apply to process claims, but this Court concludes it does.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board's ("Board") decision sustaining Rexnord's opposition of three of Valu's trademark applications for conveyor guide rail configuration designs. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Valu's designs are de jure functional and concluded that the Board's decision to confine its functionality analysis to a single competitively significant application was not legally erroneous.

The invention is a method for determining executive compensation which does not require the use of a computer. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had rejected the claim as not reciting statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it is not within "the technological arts." The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reversed the rejection stating that 35 U.S.C. § 101 does not include a requirement that the invention be within the technological arts.

Patent claims were found anticipated by a prior art reference where limitations not expressly found in the reference were inherent from the drawings of the reference.

Intrinsic evidence is the most reliable evidence for construing claim terms, whereas extrinsic evidence is less reliable and should be used for limited purposes.

Patentee declined to comment on the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance. Court held that patentee's silence on the Statement is not an acquiescence of any patent rights.

A patentee who falsely marks its products with a patent number is not automatically liable for the statutory fine imposed by 35 U.S.C. § 292. Proof of intent to deceive the public, by a preponderance of the evidence, is required.