Source: http://www.gbpatent.com/content/newsletters/LitigationNewsletter/lt65.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 17:04:05+00:00

Document:
In Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, Citrix Systems Inc., (Appeal No. 2013-1130), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s claim construction.
The district court additionally concluded that the limitation “distributed learning control module,” was a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6. The district court then evaluated the specification and concluded that it failed to disclose the necessary algorithms for performing all of the claimed functions. The district court thus held the claims reciting this limitation invalid as indefinite under § 112, para. 2. Based on these claim construction, the plaintiff stipulated to judgment of no infringement and appealed.
Accordingly, because the district court erred in construing the “graphical display” limitations and the “distributed learning control module” limitation, the stipulated judgment of non-infringement and the judgment of invalidity were vacated and the case was remanded to the district court.
In Antares Pharma v. Medac Pharma (Appeal No. 2014-1648), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Antares’s motion for preliminary injunction holding that the asserted claims in a Reissue patent violated the recapture rule.
Antares filed a motion for preliminary injunction against Medac Pharma asserting infringement of Reissue Patent RE 44,846 (“the ‘846 patent”) which reissued from U.S. Patent No. 7,776,015 (“the ‘015 patent”). During prosecution of the ‘015 patent, the applicants repeatedly distinguished their invention from the prior art by focusing on the “jet injector” limitation present in the claims but not the prior art. All of the originally issued claims recited the “jet injection” limitation.
The district court found that Antares had broadened its reissue claims which no longer recited the “jet injection” limitation, and now covered any “injection device.” The district therefore held that the reissue claims were invalid because they violated the original patent requirement and the recapture rule.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that generally, the recapture rule prohibits applicants from claiming on reissue claim scope surrendered during the course of the original prosecution. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims had been improperly broadened, and affirmed the district court’s denial of Antares’ preliminary injunction holding that the claims on appeal were invalid for failure to satisfy the original patent requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251.
In Ultramercial v. Hulu and WildTangent (Appeal No. 2010-1544), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s granting of a motion to dismiss on the ground that the patent-in-suit did not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Originally, the district court granted a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the grounds that the patent-in-suit did not claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss. WildTangent then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, requesting review by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. __, 132 S. Ct.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court granted WildTangent’s petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Alice.
Upon further review of the patent-in-suit and the standards adopted by the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit concluded that the patent-in-suit did not claim patent eligible subject matter. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of WildTangent’s motion to dismiss.

References: v. 
 § 112
 § 112
 v. 
 § 251
 v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 v.