Legal Opinion
Inre: Packard
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Decided May 6, 2014No. 2013-1204PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge PLAGER.
2Per curiam
This case raises an important question: what standard for indefiniteness should the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) apply to pre-issuance claims? The parties point to no case in which we previously have addressed this question.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) held Mr. Packard’s applied-for patent claims indefinite, and therefore not in compliance with the statutory drafting requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), which provide that the specification conclude with “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly…
3Cases cited17 opinions
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Dickinson v. ZurkoSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
- United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Exxon Research and Engineering Company v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2001
- Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. v. M-I LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by24 opinions
- Monsanto Technology LLC v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- In re TLI Communications LLC Patent LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015
- Westerngeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp. (In Re Westerngeco LLC)Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2018
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Tq Delta, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
- Btg International Limited v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLCCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2019
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.