If you’re a regular reader of IPWatchdog, it probably wouldn’t surprise you to hear that two different U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC or Federal Circuit) panels recently issued inconsistent, irreconcilable opinions. But what just happened over the last month is particularly concerning. Specifically, within the span of six days, the Federal Circuit held that: “A computer” means one and only one computer when a subsequent claim element recites “the computer” (Finjan v. Sonicwall); and “A sample stream” means one or more sample streams when a subsequent claim element recites “the sample stream” (ABS Global v. Cytonome/ST).
Recent Posts
- CAFC Dodges Key Issues in Reversing District Court Finding for Google on Prosecution Laches
- CAFC Corrects PTAB’s Inventorship Analysis in First Appeal of AIA Derivation Proceeding
- Brunetti’s Back: Split CAFC Rejects Most of Scandalous Trademark Applicant’s Arguments But Remands for Second Chance at TTAB
- CAFC is Unconvinced by Claim Construction Challenges to ITC’s Robotics Patent Infringement Finding
- D.C. Circuit Kills Judge Newman’s Appeal While Hinting at Constitutional Problems with Suspension