Patent Prosecution Update
October 2016
A Chemical Markush Claim Tests the Elasticity of “Consisting of”
Why are chemical patent claims so difficult to understand? This was the question posed during a 1961 presentation before the Division of Chemical Literature for the American Chemical Society. According to the author, “[A]ttention has been called to the ‘sometimes baffling’ and seemingly ‘absurd’ idiom in which are cast chemical patent claims.” At least some of the blame for the confusion was attributed by the author to the “so-called ‘Markush’ claim.” Thus, the author wisely advised, “[A]n understanding of the philosophy behind the Markush expression in chemical claims might help to understand better the meaning of chemical claims themselves.” More than fifty years later, and at a time where subject matter eligibility, written description, and definiteness issues are at the forefront of the patent prosecution sphere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., Nos. 2015-1420, -1477(Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2016), revisits the Markush claims and offers guidance on their proper use. More
Section 112 Again Shows Teeth
In Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 2015-1732 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), the Federal Circuit continued in the vein of Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, in affirming a district court’s finding claims with a functional recitation, but insufficient structure to support that recited function, as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and therefore subjecting the element to construction as a means-plus-function recitation. After this construction, because sufficient structure for performing the recited function was absent in the disclosure, the claims where deemed to be indefinite under the second paragraph of § 112, ¶ 2, and therefore invalid. More
A Chemical Markush Claim Tests the Elasticity of “Consisting of”
Why are chemical patent claims so difficult to understand? This was the question posed during a 1961 presentation before the Division of Chemical Literature for the American Chemical Society. According to the author, “[A]ttention has been called to the ‘sometimes baffling’ and seemingly ‘absurd’ idiom in which are cast chemical patent claims.” At least some of the blame for the confusion was attributed by the author to the “so-called ‘Markush’ claim.” Thus, the author wisely advised, “[A]n understanding of the philosophy behind the Markush expression in chemical claims might help to understand better the meaning of chemical claims themselves.” More than fifty years later, and at a time where subject matter eligibility, written description, and definiteness issues are at the forefront of the patent prosecution sphere, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., Nos. 2015-1420, -1477(Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2016), revisits the Markush claims and offers guidance on their proper use. More
Section 112 Again Shows Teeth
In Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 2015-1732 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016), the Federal Circuit continued in the vein of Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, in affirming a district court’s finding claims with a functional recitation, but insufficient structure to support that recited function, as invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and therefore subjecting the element to construction as a means-plus-function recitation. After this construction, because sufficient structure for performing the recited function was absent in the disclosure, the claims where deemed to be indefinite under the second paragraph of § 112, ¶ 2, and therefore invalid. More
IP5 Offices
New Matter
Read
Design Patents
Lessons Learned from Recent IPR Decisions Involving Design Patents
Read
Rule Review
Approaching the End of the Line for Accelerated Examination?
Read
EPO Practice
New Financial Incentives to Abandon European Patent Applications
Read
At the Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit Offers Instruction on Alice’s First Step
Read
 |
| Follow us on |  |
 |
 |
DISCLAIMER: The information contained herein is intended to convey general information only and should not be construed as a legal opinion or as legal advice. The firm disclaims liability for any errors or omissions and readers should not take any action that relies upon the information contained in this newsletter. You should consult your own lawyer concerning your own situation and any specific legal questions. This promotional newsletter does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with our firm or with any of our attorneys.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact:
Eric P. Raciti, Editor-in-Chief
J. Derek McCorquindale, Associate Editor
Clara N. Jiménez, Associate Editor
Eric P. Raciti, Editor-in-Chief
J. Derek McCorquindale, Associate Editor
Clara N. Jiménez, Associate Editor
Finnegan publishes newsletters, blogs, and IP Updates that provide news, statistics, and analysis of recent court decisions. Our newsletters and blogs focus on Federal Circuit practice, PTAB practice, trademark and copyright law, patent prosecution and counseling, and IP licensing. To sign up to receive newsletters, blog posts, or IP Updates, please click here.
Atlanta ▪ Boston ▪ London ▪ Palo Alto ▪ Reston ▪ Seoul ▪ Shanghai ▪ Taipei ▪ Tokyo ▪ Washington, DC
www.finnegan.com
Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP | All rights reserved