In THE LARYNGEAL MASK COMPANY LTD. AND LMA NORTH AMERICA, INC., v. AMBU A/S, AMBU INC., AND AMBU LTD, 10-1028 (CAFC, September 21, 2010), the CAFC reversed the US District Court for the Southern District of California on Claim Construction and Satisfaction of Written Description Requirement. The Laryngeal Mask Company Ltd. and LMA North America, [...]
CAFC reverses US District Court for the Southern District of California on Claim Construction and Satisfaction of Written Description Requirement
Broadest-Construction Rubric Coupled with Term”Comprising”Does not Give USPTO Unbridled License to Expand Scope of Claims
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held in In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 2009-1418 (CAFC, April 14, 2010) that the “broadest broadest-construction rubric coupled with the term “comprising” does not give the PTO an unfettered license to interpret claims to embrace anything remotely related to the claimed invention. Rather, claims should always [...]

CAFC Expands Ruling to Leave Open Question of Abandoned versus Dedicated to the Public
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) found the District Court for the Southern District of New York erred in its claim construction of critical claim terms in Shindler Elevator Corp. et al. v. Otis ElevatorCompany, 2009-1146 (CAFC, January 15, 2010). As a result, the District Court’s summary judgment of non-infringement by Otis [...]
Schedule
an In-Person or
Telephone Appointment
-
Impact of US Supreme Court’s Prometheus Patentable Subject Matter Decision
May 18, 2012
-
Amendments or Arguments after Final Rejection may be Accepted under new USPTO Pilot Program
May 9, 2012
-
Digitization of Copyright entries Nearly Complete at US Library of Congress
May 2, 2012
- Sound Trademark Dispute: Ride the Ducks v. Bay Quackers August 26, 2009
- 274 green patents filed in second quarter August 27, 2009
- IBM Files US Patent for Facebook Remote Control September 1, 2009
RECEIVE CURRENT IP UPDATES
Testimonials
“Jim Pravel has always provide an honest assessment of a particular situation whether in the court room or in preparation and filing of a new idea. His technical, engineering background combined with his legal training make Jim uniquely qualified in the practice of his particular expertise. He is highly recommended and should be sought out when defending existing intellectual properties or aggressively protecting and positioning new and unique ideas.”
Jim P.








