SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

elkay, pall corp., omega, spectrum, middleton, saunders

custom search

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Tewari et al 11540320 - (D) MEDLOCK 102 ANDRUS, SCEALES, STARKE & SAWALL, LLP MANSFIELD, THOMAS L

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2825 Ex Parte Nair 11598327 - (D) TORCZON 103 102/103 37 CFR 40.51(b) 103 THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP (Broadcom) LEVIN, NAUM B

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3745 Ex Parte Cloft et al 11754455 - (D) SPAHN 112(1)/112(2) 102/103 CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY c/o CPA Global PRAGER, JESSE M

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2600 Communications
2689 Ex Parte Long et al 11303283 - (D) JEFFERY 102/103 KIMBERLY-CLARK WORLDWIDE, INC. MEHMOOD, JENNIFER

FEDERAL CIRCUIT

REVERSED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3693 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OPEN E CRY, LLC, AND OPTIONSXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND TRADESTATION SECURITIES, INC., AND TRADESTATION GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND IBG, LLC, THINKORSWIM GROUP, INC., TD AMERITRADE, INC., TD AMERITRADE HOLDING CORP., AND INTERACTIVE BROKERS, LLC, Defendants Appellees, AND CQG, INC., AND CQGT, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, AND 2 TRADING TECHNOLOGIES INTL v. OPEN E CRY, LLC FUTUREPATH TRADING LLC, SUNGARD DATA SYSTEMS, INC., SUNGARD INVESTMENT VENTURES LLC, AND GL TRADE AMERICAS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, LTD., AND STELLAR TRADING SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees, AND ESPEED MARKETS, LP, BGC CAPITAL MARKETS, LP, AND ECCOWARE LTD., Defendants-Appellees, AND ROSENTHAL COLLINS GROUP, LLC, Defendant. 2012-1583 7,676,411 11/585,907 7,693,768 11/585,906 7,904,374 11/585,905 7,685,055 11/417,547 LOURIE 112(2)/prosecution history estoppel Trading Technologies International, Inc. McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP; Salans LLP; Greenberg Traurig, LLP; Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione; WEISBERGER, RICHARD C

The court ... concluded that when “‘multiple patents derive from the same initial application, the prosecution history regarding a claim limitation in any patent that has issued applies with equal force to subsequently issued patents that contain the same claim limitation.’” ... (quoting Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
...
Prosecution history estoppel applies as part of an infringement analysis to prevent a patentee from using the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter surrendered from the literal scope of a claim during prosecution. Pall Corp. v. Hemasure Inc., 181 F.3d 1305, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Prosecution disclaimer, on the other hand, affects claim construction and applies where an applicant’s actions during prosecution prospectively narrow the literal scope of an otherwise more expansive claim limitation. Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323–24 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Though distinct, both doctrines serve to constrain the enforceable scope of patent claims commensurate with any subject matter surrendered during prosecution to obtain the patent, and a single action during prosecution can engender both a prosecution disclaimer and prosecution history estoppel. See, e.g., Elkay, 192 F.3d at 978–79, 981; Spectrum Int’l, Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., 164 F.3d 1372, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
...
See Middleton, Inc. v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 311 F.3d 1384, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “When the purported disclaimers are directed to specific claim terms that have been omitted or materially altered in subsequent applications . . . those disclaimers do not apply.” Saunders Grp., Inc. v. Comfortrac, Inc., 492 F.3d 1326, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1600 Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry
1646 BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOW AGROSCIENCES LLC, Defendant-Appellee. 2013-1002 6,153,401 07/322,604 TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP; original FROMMER LAWRENCE & HAUG ULM, JOHN D

Tech Center 2100 Computer Architecture and Software
2155 COOPER NOTIFICATION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TWITTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND EVERBRIDGE, INC., Defendant-Appellee, AND FEDERAL SIGNAL CORP., Defendant-Appellee. 2012-1615 7,409,428 10/829,181 LOURIE concurring in part and dissenting in part TARANTO claim construction summary judgment of non-infringement Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP; Fenwick & West LLP WON, MICHAEL YOUNG

REHEARING 

GRANTED
Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3642 SOVERAIN SOFTWARE LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NEWEGG INC., Defendant-Appellant. 2011-1009 5,715,314 08/328,133 PER CURIAM 103 Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP; Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP original STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. GREGORY, BERNARR E

No comments :