Tuesday, May 16, 2006
No more automatic permaent injunction
In eBay v. MercExchange, the U.S. Supreme Court puts an end to the conventional rule that a finding of infringement automatically results in a permanent injunction.
From now on, it's the district court's discretion whether an injunction should issue.
From now on, it's the district court's discretion whether an injunction should issue.
Friday, May 12, 2006
Do not characterize your invention in the specification
Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.
The issue in this case is whether the term “host interface” is properly construed by the district court. The district court limited the meaning of “host interface” to “a direct bus interface”.
CAFC relied on SciMed life and stated that “where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be construed broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”
In this case, the specification characterizes the direct bus interface as a “very important feature” of the invention, stating that a “direct” communication is necessary to provide “direct” access. Further, the prosecution history supports the above interpretation.
Thus, the interface requires direct parallel connection.
The issue in this case is whether the term “host interface” is properly construed by the district court. The district court limited the meaning of “host interface” to “a direct bus interface”.
CAFC relied on SciMed life and stated that “where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be construed broad enough to encompass the feature in question.”
In this case, the specification characterizes the direct bus interface as a “very important feature” of the invention, stating that a “direct” communication is necessary to provide “direct” access. Further, the prosecution history supports the above interpretation.
Thus, the interface requires direct parallel connection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
