Monthly Archives: April 2018

VOTER VERIFIED, INC. v. ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE, 17-1930, decided April 20, 2018

  U.S. Reissue No. RE40,449, directed to auto-verification of voting ballot. The claims require voting using a computer and temporary storage of the votes, printing the votes from storage, comparing by the voter the stored and printed votes, and acceptance (pages 12-13).  Humans have performed these basic activities of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting […]

DROPLETS, INC. v. E*TRADE BANK, 16-2504, 16-2602, decided April 19, 2018

U.S. Patent No. 8,402,115, directed to interactive links. Incorporation by reference was alleged to satisfy the specific reference needed for a priority claim (pages 3).  The priority claim, in its own and first section of the specification, is to a prior utility (parent), but not to the prior grandparent or even more prior provisional application […]

APATOR MIITORS APS v. KAMSTRUP, 17-1681, decided April 17, 2018

U.S. Patent No. 8,893,559. Directed to ultrasound meter. Patentee attempted to swear behind prior by 18 days (page 2).  Emails, all from the inventor, were dated before the prior art filing date (pages 2-3).  The “attached” files in the emails were not attached, so the mere statement of having a “new thing” in the email […]

SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO. v. EMCURE PHARMA, 17-1798, 17-1799, 17-1800, decided April 16, 2018

U.S. Patent No. 5,532,372, directed to imide compounds. The claim recited a molecular structure argued to be a racemic mixture (50-50) of two enantiomers based on similarity to a compound in the specification (page 6).  The plain claim language and specification indicate that the claim at least covers the (-)enantiomer (pages 7-8).  The specification does […]

KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC v. ANDREI IANCU, 16-1954, decided April 6, 2018

U.S. Patent No. 8,018,049, directed to a silicon condenser microphone creatable as a panel with later separation.  “Package” of the claims is argued to include a mounting mechanism based on an unrelated Fed. Cir. decision interpreting silicon related “package” for a different patent (pages 8-9).  According to the Fed. Cir., the claims themselves do not […]