Patent Defenses:
A Legal Research Tool
Patent Defenses is a unique legal research tool for businesses and individuals to find information about possible defenses to utility patent infringement claims under U.S. law.
This can be used to search Patent Defenses for a keyword or phrase. For example, search “double patenting,” “exhaustion,” or “Princo” (or other case name).
Ways to Use Patent Defenses
- search for a specific term or keyword
- browse topics of interest
- explore "recent case highlights"
About Klarquist
Klarquist is a proven intellectual property law firm for science and technology companies as well as individuals looking to creatively protect and defend their ideas.
In the 80 years since our founding, Klarquist supports innovators who work on the cutting edge of software, biotech, research, media, apparel, energy, and more. We bring experience and deep technical expertise to all matters related to intellectual property, including litigation, patents, and trademarks.
Read more
Recent Tweets
;
112(f): J. Moore's explanation of why "lifter member ..." invokes 112/6 is a good read for newer patent attorneys not already expert on 112(f), and good reminder for all patent attorneys on the impact of Williamson.
Kyocera v ITC 1/21 #FedCir vacates Commission finding of Koki’s s337 violation. ALJ erred in construing “lifter member” as not 112/6. It is a non-structural generic place-holder (member) modified by functional language (lifter). Remand to discern spec’s corresponding structures.
Remote trial: Just finished 3-day patent-related trial w/ 3 arbitrators. Technology worked smoothly all around. Move into breakout rooms w/o taking a step. No GHG from air travel. Home in the evening. Still see witness demeanor. Compared to in-court bench trial, net positive imo.
What are three "how" requirements in patent law? Can a 112(f) element w/o linked structure, etc. be compared to prior art (e.g., by PTAB)? Why use "means for" in some claims? 7 ideas for litigators to advance patent law in 2022. Join us today at noon Pacific. Email for link:
3/3, 8. Let’s Advance Patent Law in 2022
For webinar link and to request CLE credit, please email cle@klarquist.com your state and bar number(s).
Markman: The cert. petition, w/ CVSG today, challenges O2 Micro (can't leave construction dispute for jury) as contrary to Markman. Oh my. I tried patent cases pre-Markman. Let's hope someone in SG's office did as well : ).
#SCOTUS is really interested in the goverment's thoughts on patent issues this term. It issued its third CVSG today in Olaf Soot v. Daktronics, 21-438, re claim construction.
1/3
Redacted Areas of Patent Defenses
You may note that some areas in Patent Defenses are indicated as “redacted.” These areas contain confidential tips and strategies that are restricted to clients of the firm. If you are a client of the firm and would like access to the redacted confidential areas, please contact businessdevelopment@klarquist.com.
Disclaimer
Patent Defenses is a way for businesses and individuals to find information about possible defenses to utility patent infringement claims under U.S. law. Although prepared by a law firm, it does not constitute and is not a substitute for competent patent law advice from competent patent professionals. Among other things, the variability of the kinds of inventions to which patent law can apply and the different circumstances in which inventions are made and infringement claims are brought prevent any overview or analysis that would cover any and all specific circumstances. In addition, and even though we seek to update this website on a roughly weekly basis, we necessarily cannot cover all related developments on all issues.
We seek instead to provide information that we hope will be useful as a starting point for thinking about issues relating to defenses against U.S. patent infringement claims.
Patent Defenses was last updated on January 11, 2022.
Recent Tweets
112(f): J. Moore's explanation of why "lifter member ..." invokes 112/6 is a good read for newer patent attorneys not already expert on 112(f), and good reminder for all patent attorneys on the impact of Williamson.
Kyocera v ITC 1/21 #FedCir vacates Commission finding of Koki’s s337 violation. ALJ erred in construing “lifter member” as not 112/6. It is a non-structural generic place-holder (member) modified by functional language (lifter). Remand to discern spec’s corresponding structures.
Remote trial: Just finished 3-day patent-related trial w/ 3 arbitrators. Technology worked smoothly all around. Move into breakout rooms w/o taking a step. No GHG from air travel. Home in the evening. Still see witness demeanor. Compared to in-court bench trial, net positive imo.
What are three "how" requirements in patent law? Can a 112(f) element w/o linked structure, etc. be compared to prior art (e.g., by PTAB)? Why use "means for" in some claims? 7 ideas for litigators to advance patent law in 2022. Join us today at noon Pacific. Email for link:
3/3, 8. Let’s Advance Patent Law in 2022
For webinar link and to request CLE credit, please email cle@klarquist.com your state and bar number(s).
Markman: The cert. petition, w/ CVSG today, challenges O2 Micro (can't leave construction dispute for jury) as contrary to Markman. Oh my. I tried patent cases pre-Markman. Let's hope someone in SG's office did as well : ).
#SCOTUS is really interested in the goverment's thoughts on patent issues this term. It issued its third CVSG today in Olaf Soot v. Daktronics, 21-438, re claim construction.
1/3