Invalidating patent claims dating moroccan men
In addition, while a party is generally permitted to offer alternative arguments to the court, this strategy may impair a party's credibility when arguing that a clerical error is clear on the face of the patent.
operable for monitoring". Plaintiff argued that the disputed claims contained a typographical error and that the phrase "inputs to be controlled" should have read "inputs to be monitored". Plaintiff asserted that, according to the prosecution history, the phrase "to be controlled" was to follow "outputs" and "to be monitored" was to follow "inputs", and that the phrase "to be controlled" was inadvertently placed after "inputs" in the disputed claims. In the alternative, plaintiff argued that the phrase "input to be controlled" should be construed to mean "signals or data to the wireless communication unit that may be reported and/or controlled". The court agreed with defendants, finding that without any antecedent basis for the phrase "said inputs to be controlled", the claims were indefinite. In response to plaintiff's argument that the phrase was the result of a typographical error, the court found that a patent claim could only be corrected if (1) the correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on consideration of the claim language and the specification, and (2) the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims. The court held that the phrase was subject to reasonable debate, as evidenced by plaintiff's proposed alternative construction: "The Court does not find that the claims in this case include an obvious clerical error when Plaintiff continues to argue for an alternative construction.
Here it is: The decision in the patent office proceedings was the first final judgment During the appeal of the damages award (item 8 above), Fresenius argued that the cancellation of the patent claims by the patent office extinguishes the cause of action for the infringement by Baxter.
The Federal Circuit agreed with this position and held that under the patent re-examination and reissue statutes, if the patent claim is canceled, then the patentee’s cause of action is extinguished and the suit fails.
In some situations, both the federal court proceeding and the patent office proceeding would occur on a parallel course.
The second path was to file a post-grant proceeding with the U. Patent and Trademark Office, such as a request for a re-examination of a patent.