September 2009 – Click for full issue

• E.D. Texas court rules that litigation defenses developed after infringement first began are irrelevant to Seagate’s objective prong unless they would have been apparent and considered by a reasonable person in the infringer’s position before the infringing activity began
• Federal Circuit to address en banc whether § 112 requires a “written description” requirement that is separate from enablement
• En banc panel of Federal Circuit holds that § 271(f) does not apply to method claims
• Excluding evidence of co-pending reexamination proceedings under FRE 403 – recent opinions from the Federal Circuit and two district courts
• Federal Circuit holds that willful failure to submit documentary information that could overcome a written-description rejection at the PTO precluded submitting that information as new evidence in a § 145 action
• District court holds claims to a computer implemented process valid under the transformation prong of Bilski where they required a visual display of the end product while claims that did not require a visual display were held invalid
• PTO issues interim examination guidelines for subject matter eligibility

Posted in Patent Happening