The Intellectual Property Strategist

Features

In a decision that is certain to impact both patent prosecution and patent litigation strategies, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that the literal scope of claims reciting time-dependent claim terms is limited to the technologies existing at the time of the invention. <i>See PC Connector Solutions LLC v. Smartdisk Corp.</i>, 406 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, the court stated that such claims would not be infringed by later arising technology even under the doctrine of equivalents. This case, in combination with the Federal Circuit's earlier decision in <i>Kopykake Enterprises, Inc. v. The Lucks Company</i>, 264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001), demonstrates that patent practitioners must be extremely careful when using words such as "conventional," "normal," "standard" or "traditional" in the claims or in specification definitions of claim terms. On the other hand, those accused of infringement should argue for the inclusion of such terms during claim construction, particularly when the accused device comprises technology developed after the invention date of the patent-in-suit.

Pharmaceutical companies have had some success extending the lives of their patent portfolios by obtaining patents that claim the combination of a known drug, a container for holding it, and a label providing instructions for a new use of the drug. These "drug labeling patents" have given such companies a leg up in their ongoing battle with generic drug manufacturers. However, a little-noticed judicial decision handed down by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") has cast serious doubt over whether drug labeling claims constitute patentable subject matter.

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

&#133;

&#133;

Features

One of the hot intellectual property topics for 2005 &mdash; and perhaps beyond &mdash; is whether the sale and use of trademarks as keywords constitutes trademark infringement, and, if so, who is liable for that infringement. How the courts ultimately resolve this issue will affect the billion-dollar Internet advertising industry, those who participate in online advertising and those seeking to prevent the unauthorized use of their trademarks on the Internet. This article discusses <i>Google v. American Blind &amp; Wallpaper Factory, Inc.</i>, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2005), the most recent case to address the emerging issue of "markmatching" in Internet contextual advertising, and its relationship to trademark infringement.

Features

You are the owner of KibbleSoft, the widely used fuzzy-logic retail management software package for pet food distributors. Understanding the value of the KibbleSoft brand, you have registered the trademark and carefully policed against infringers for a number of years. And having early grasped the importance of the Internet for promoting your brand, you were also a step ahead of the cybersquatters and acquired the <i>kibblesoft.com</i> domain in 1996. Much of your business now runs through your heavy-trafficked Web site at <i>www.kibblesoft.com.</i>

Features

A means-plus-function limitation recites a function to be performed rather than definite structure or materials for performing that function. <i>Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts, Inc. v. Cardinal Indus., Inc.</i>, 145 F.3d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Such a limitation is more narrow than a counterpart written in structural format. <i>Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.</i>, 382 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, patent drafters still commonly use means-plus-function limitations in computer-related patent claims for convenience sake.