Fed. Cir. No. 2021-2320, 2021-2376: Typically patent drafters omit phrases like “at least one” from patent claims to improve readability, but a recent court decision may reverse the trend.
Today, there is much talk about how artificial intelligence plays a significant role in patent drafting and could replace the patent attorney altogether.
Patent drafters should take the time to consider the “why” behind drafting choices. There is no “right” or “wrong” way here, only the need to be mindful.
Fed. Cir. 2018-2087 - Plastic Omnium was unsuccessful in proving patent infringement because the patents used a "special definition" of the word "parison".
2019 FC 1233 – In a dispute over flax seeds, Canada's Federal Court says foreign prosecution history may be admissible under the new s. 53.1 of the Patent Act.
CAFC 2018-1763 – In fiercely dissented decision, a top US court has invalidated an automotive patent, further extending the reach of the controversial §101.
CAFC 2018-2207 – The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that “wherein” clauses in patent claims can be limiting if they are material to patentability.
2017 SCC 36 - The Supreme Court of Canada struck down the “promise doctrine” of Canadian patent law in favour of merely requiring a single use related to the nature of the subject-matter of the invention having a scintilla of utility.
Re. Patent Application No. 592,567, CD 1303 The subject application was rejected by the Examiner under section 2 of the Patent Act for containing claims for […]