Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Finds Preamble Not Limiting and Claims Reciting Means-Plus-Function Limitations Without Disclosure of Corresponding Structures Cannot Be Determined Unpatentable as Indefinite in an IPR Proceeding
On May 15, 2020, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Newman, O'Malley and Taranto issued a split opinion in Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical AB et al., 958 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Patent Owner Cochlear appealed, and Petitioner Oticon cross-appealed, from final written decisions issued by the PTAB in two inter partes review (IPR) proceedings concerning the same patent on hearing aids, in which the PTAB found a first set of claims unpatentable and a second set (claims 7-10) not unpatentable. Writing for the majority, Judge Taranto affirmed the PTAB's conclusions as to all claims except claim 10, as to which the majority vacated and remanded.
The majority first addressed whether the sole independent claim's preamble phrase "for rehabilitation of unilateral hearing loss" limits the scope of the claims, and found that it does not. Slip Op. at 9. The majority found that: 1) the preamble phrase is merely a statement of intended use of the claimed hearing aid; 2) it identifies no structure, let alone essential structure, for the hearing aid; 3) the use is not an inventive or patentably distinct aspect of the claimed invention but a conventional use of prior art hearing aids; and 4) the phrase is not necessary to provide antecedent basis for the body of the claims. Id. at 10-11. On these facts, the majority concluded that the PTAB correctly found that the preamble is not limiting. Id. at 9.
The majority then turned to whether the PTAB erred in construing the term "specifically adapted to" by its ordinary meaning, and found no error. Id. at 12. Several claims recite that "the frequency characteristics of the apparatus are specifically adapted to transmit vibrations in the skull bone from one side of the skull to the other side." Id. at 7. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard that is applicable here, the majority rejected Cochlear's contention that the term requires a particular intent or objective of a hearing-aid designer or manufacturer, i.e., making adaptions to frequency characteristics to account for the mechanics of the skull. Id. at 12. The majority concluded that the PTAB correctly construed the term to cover any frequency-characteristic adaption to transmit vibrations from one side of the skull to the other side. Id. at 12.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?