Originality is a constitutional requirement and is part of a two-prong test for copyrightability: (1) independent creation by the author and (2) minimal degree of creativity. Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991). The level of creativity necessary for a work to qualify for copyright protection is very low. See…

Broad Claim Scope Survives Despite Single Embodiment Disclosure Holding that a patentee is entitled to claim scope covering an entire class of devices based on the patent disclosure describing one device of the class, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on a district…

Combination of Two Embodiments in a Single Reference Renders Claims Obvious Affirming the district court’s claim construction but holding that the court erred as a matter of law in failing to hold the patent obvious, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of…

Damages for Post-Infringement-Verdict Sales Are Affected by the Stay of Injunction Addressing the issue of damages for a post-infringement-verdict period, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s unexplained damage award, which trebled the per unit royalty rate for the post-verdict period, and remanded the damages issue for further consideration…

Federal Circuit Reinterprets Claims Based on Intrinsic Evidence Disagreeing with a district court’s interpretation that a “frame” in sunglasses included rims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a non-precedential decision, reversed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement as to one patent, but affirmed the grant of summary judgment of non-infringement…

Intent to Deceive Must be Shown by Clear and Convincing Evidence Addressing the issue of inequitable conduct during patent prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the patentee’s alleged acts did not rise to the level of inequitable conduct. The court also affirmed the district court’s…

No Inequitable Conduct When Inferences Can Be Drawn Against such Finding Holding that the applicant is entitled to all reasonable inferences against the finding of inequitable conduct during patent prosecution, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of inequitable conduct and the judgment that related patents are unenforceable and vacated…

By using this website you agree to the following disclaimers, terms, and conditions. This website is intended for informational purposes only, but it is not legal advice nor is it intended to substitute professional legal advice. Please consult with a competent attorney regarding your issues and questions and obtain a legal opinion based on the analysis of your particular facts and circumstances. Materials on this website use prior cases, but prior results are not a guarantee of a similar outcome. Useful links are provided as an available resource, but no endorsement or warranty, express or implied, is made with respect to any of the agencies, organizations, companies, products or services.

We welcome communications by telephone, email, or through this website. However, please be aware that using this website or contacting us does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship. You should also be aware that communication by email is not a secure means of communication, and it is possible that others may have access to our communications by this method. If you have confidentiality concerns about communication by email and prefer not to utilize this method of communication, please let us know and we will respect your wishes. Please do not send any unsolicited documents to us because they will not be considered privileged communications by the law.