Category Archives: Lessons In Hindsight

REALTIME DATA, LLC v. IANCU, decided Jan. 10, 2019, Novelty

U.S. Patent No. 6,597,812 is directed to lossless compression and decompression with dictionary encoding (page 2).  The claim recites “maintaining a dictionary” (pages 3 and 11).  The dispute is over whether the maintaining requires retaining during the entirety of data compression unless and until the number of entries exceeds a threshold (page 11).  The creation […]

IN RE: MARCO GULDENAAR HOLDING B.V., decided Dec. 28, 2018, Patentable Subject Matter

U.S. Application No. 13/078,196 is directed to dice with particular markings and rules for use (pages 2-3).  A wagering game based on a deck of cards is abstract, so basing the probabilities on dice instead of cards does not change that claims are directed to an abstract idea (pages 4-5).  For an inventive concept sufficient […]

ENPLAS DISPLAY DEVICE CORP. v. SEOUL SEMICONDUCTOR CO., decided November 19, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,007,209 and 6,473,554 are directed to uniform backlighting LED panels (pages 2-3).  “Emitted by plural lights sources mounted on said internal bottom wall” is required by claim 20 of the ‘209 patent (page 9).  The prior art does not mount light sources on the bottom (page 9).  A witness suggested modification to […]

HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC. v. F’REAL FOODS, LLC, decided November 16, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent No. 7,520,662 is directed to a rinseable splash shield (page 2).  The method claim recites a “nozzle oriented towards the splash shield” and uses “positionable” for other objects (page 17).  Limitations were not read in from the specification as the claim itself as the claim recites orientation of the nozzle as part of […]

ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INV. v. HTC AMERICA, INC., decided Nov. 16, 2018, Statutory Subject Matter

U.S. Patent No. 6,411,941 is directed to restricting software operation using a key code for the computer and a license record for the application (pages 2-3).  The improvement is in storing the license record as part of the BIOS memory (pages 3-4).  The USPTO appeal board declined to review as the claims are a technical […]

ARISTA NETWORKS, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., decided November 9, 2018, Claim Interpretation

U.S. Patent No. 7,340,597 is directed to securing network devices using a logging module for configuration changes (pages 2-3).  “Broadcast” was construed as requiring a broadcast transmission to be delivered to all network devices (pages 5-6).  The patent includes “multicasting via a multicast address as a type of broadcasting” and does not disclose any other […]

ACCELERATION BAY, LLC v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD INC., decided November 6, 2018, Claim Interp, Preamble, Prior Art

U.S. Patent Nos. 6,829,634; 6,701,344; and 6,714,966 are directed to broadcast channel overlays in a point-to-point communications network (pages 2-3).  The “participant” is not specifically “an application program that interacts with a logical broadcast channel which overlays an underlaying network” as the claims and specification do not define or expressly describe the term in this […]


U.S. Patent Nos. 8,232,250, 8,399,413, and 8,969,302 are directed to higher dose (40mg v. 20mg) and less frequent injection (3 days a week v. daily) of a drug for multiple sclerosis (pages 3-4).  Prior art is 20 mg daily based on a clinical trial without an optimal dose finding study, but with a note to […]

DATA ENGINE TECHS. LLC v GOOGLE LLC, decided Oct. 9, 2018, Statutory Subject Matter

U.S. Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551; and 5,303,146 are directed to a user interface with notebook tabs to navigate spreadsheets and other spreadsheet functionality (pages 2-3).  When filed, spreadsheets used complex commands in complex menus or memorization to navigate (pages 3-4).  The “tab” implementation was acclaimed at the time (pages 5-6).  Claim 12 of the […]

NATURAL ALTERNATIVES v. IANCU, decided October 1, 2018, Priority Claim

U.S. Patent No. 8,067,381 is based on a chain of eight US applications – the patent at issue is from the eighth application (page 2).  The cross-reference in the CIP fifth application was amended to delete reference to the first through fourth applications, resulting in claiming priority to just a provisional application filed after the […]