717 Madison Place

I posted previously that the Supreme Court was construing a “use” based statute in LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company.  The Court announced this week that the Justices split 4-4 on the decision with Justice Barrett taking no part in the decision.

The oral argument of the day is from the Federal Circuit’s decision in the design patent case In re Surgisil, 14 F.4th 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Federal Circuit opinion is available here: [Link].

——————————————————————————————

If you were trying to recall the claim language in In re Schreiber (popcorn dispenser vs. oil can spout)– a utility patent case, rather than a design patent case — here is a link to that §102 anticipation case: [Link].

I ran across this article about the canons of claim construction. It is from back in 2005 and pre-Phillips; but, I thought it was pretty interesting. District court judges would probably enjoy it: [Link].

Under the statute it is the claims of the patent which define the invention. See White v. Dunbar, 119 U.S. 47, 51, 52; McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 423-425; The Paper Bag Patent Case, 210 U.S. 405, 419; Smith v. Snow, ante, p. 11. And each claim must stand or fall, as itself sufficiently defining invention, independently of the others. See Carlton v. Bokee, 17 Wall. 463, 472; Russell v. Place, 94 U.S. 606, 609; Leeds & Catlin Co.v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 213 U.S. 301, 319; Symington Co. v. National Malleable Castings Co., 250 U.S. 383, 385; Smith v. Snow, supra; Walker on Patents, § 220, 6th ed. 

 Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp., 294 U.S. 477, 487, 55 S.Ct. 455, 459, 79 L.Ed. 1005 (1935)(emphasis added).

Independent and dependent claims must if possible be interpreted to be consistent with each other . . . .

POWER PROBE GROUP, INC. v. INNOVA ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, 2021-2354 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2022)(Judge Lourie writing for the court).