How does the Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix affect 112(f) interpretation?

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC significantly impacted the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). According to MPEP 2181: “The Federal Circuit has stated that the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term “means” is overcome when the claim term fails…

Read More

How has the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Ochiai and Brouwer affected the need for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b)?

The Federal Circuit’s decisions in In re Ochiai and In re Brouwer have significantly impacted the need for relying on pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b). The MPEP notes: In view of the Federal Circuit’s decisions in Ochiai and Brouwer, an applicant’s need to rely upon pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(b) should be rare. These cases addressed whether…

Read More

How does insignificant computer implementation relate to insignificant extra-solution activity?

Insignificant computer implementation and insignificant extra-solution activity are related concepts in patent law, but they are treated slightly differently. The MPEP 2106.05(g) addresses this relationship: “Some cases have identified insignificant computer implementation as an example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See e.g., Fort Props., Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317, 1323-24, 101 USPQ2d…

Read More