Those who don’t deal with the patent system on a regular basis are often surprised to learn that the morality, social utility and even legality of an invention don’t enter into the question of whether it is patentable. Thus, patents are routinely granted on ideas that would certainly raise eyebrows among most decent people if actually put into practice. I was reminded of this while reading the decision handed down by the Federal Circuit today in Matthew Stevens v. Tech International, Inc.
Continue Reading Fill’er Up!
December 2004
Federal Circuit Says, “Hold Your Horses, Anheuser, THIS Bud’s For You”
By Philip P. Mann on
A while back, I criticized the Federal Circuit for seemingly going out of its way to find implied, narrowing limitations in otherwise broad claims. While it’s too early to break out the champagne, the Court’s decision last week in Anheuser-Busch v. Crown Cork & Seal suggests that common sense and plain English still play some role in the dark and mysterious art of construing patent claims. In what I hope is a refreshing indication of things to come, the sober Court demonstrated it isn’t going to swallow every narrowing claim construction argument that comes along, even if brought to you by your friends at Budweiser.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Says, “Hold Your Horses, Anheuser, THIS Bud’s For You”
Intel Patent Chief Has “No Use” For Small Patent Holders
By Philip P. Mann on
Seems Intel’s chief patent counsel David Simon has low regard for us unworthy types who have the temerity to think patents might protect smaller players too. At least that’s the message that comes across loud and clear from his comments in today’s Law.com article entitled, “Simon Says Intel Is Moving Toward Solos, Small Firms.”
In all honesty, the title was intriguing and I had to look. Could it be that a corporate giant such as Intel might actually notice that there are good lawyers in this country and that not all of them are in huge firms?
Continue Reading Intel Patent Chief Has “No Use” For Small Patent Holders
A “Reminder” From The Federal Circuit: It Pays To Support Your Case With Actual Evidence Of Infringement
By Philip P. Mann on
I’ve repeatedly stressed that, for patent plaintiffs, two issues are paramount in any patent infringement action. First, is there infringement? Second, what are the damages? Although these are fairly simple questions, I’m amazed at the number of patent plaintiffs who apparently forget these simple matters while heatedly pursuing their claims.
Today the Federal Circuit sent a gentle (?) reminder that plaintiffs claiming patent infringement really ought to provide some evidence of infringement if they hope to win. While I honestly believe the Court’s decision might have been prompted by what I sense is an increasingly hostile attitude by the Court toward patents in general, there are still some important lessons for us in this case. We’d be wise to listen.
Continue Reading A “Reminder” From The Federal Circuit: It Pays To Support Your Case With Actual Evidence Of Infringement