D THREE ENTERS., LLC v. SUNMODO CORP., 17-1909, 17-1910, decided May 21, 2018
U.S. Patent Nos. 8,689,517; 9,068,339; and 8,707,655, directed to roof mount sealing assemblies. The patents are invalid or not depending on being entitled to claim priority to a 2009 application (pages 2-4). Some claims of the patents are directed to a genus (washerless) (pages 8-9). The 2009 application disclosed one washerless assembly, which uses a […]
PRAXAIR DISTRIB., INC. v. MALLINCKRODT HOSP. PRODS., 16-2616, 16-2656, decided May 16, 2018
U.S. Patent No. 8,846,112, directed to distribution of nitric oxide cylinders. The claims are directed to providing the cylinder and providing information indicating risk (pages 3-5). Dependent claim 9 added checking for the risk and discontinuing (page 5). Claim limitations directed to the content of the information without a functional relationship are not given patentable […]
SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC, 17-2081, decided May 15, 2018
U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291, directed to statistical analysis of investment information. Even assuming innovative techniques, claims directed to nothing but a series of mathematical calculations with display of a plot in finance are ineligible (pages 2 and 3). The improvement is generally resampling to deal with heavily tailed distribution in statistical analysis (pages 3-4). The […]
ENERGY HEARING, LLC v. HEAT ON-THE-FLY, LLC, 16-1559, 16-1893, 16-1894, decided May 4, 2018
U.S. Patent No. 8,171,993, directed to heated water flow for fracing. 61 frac jobs, worth $1.8 million, were performed by Patentee prior to the critical date even though the Patentee new of the timing of the patient process (page 5). The 61 prior jobs were not disclosed to the Patent Office (page 5). The PTO […]
GENERAL HOSPITAL CORP. v. SIENNA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS, 17-1012, decided May 4, 2018
Application Serial No. 13/789,575, directed to hair removal with nanoparticles. In an interference, the claim of a patent recites 109 to 1023 particles per ml to induce thermal damage (page 2). The claim of the application recites “about 6.6×1011 particles” where about is a 10% range, resulting in 5.94×1011 to 7.26×1011 particles per ml (pages […]
IN RE: VERHOEF, 17-1976, decided May 3, 2018
Application Serial No. 13/328,201, directed to a dog mobility device. During development of the dog mobility device, VerHoef asked the Vet if there was a way to connect a harness to the dogs toes, and the Vet suggested a figure “8” strap (page 3). An earlier application claiming the figure “8” strap was filed listing […]
TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC SOLUTIONS, INC. v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., 16-2121, 2208, and 2235, decided May 1, 2018
U.S. Patent No. 6,596,981, directed to ambient light sensors. The default mode of operation of the accused product does not infringe (page 38). The infringing mode was not shown to be used, so there is no infringement of the method claims (page 39). The system claims require devices capable of performing an act (“means . […]
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 […]