Patents are never invalid, only their claims. This was quickly discussed by the Federal Circuit in Sophos Inc. v. RPost Holdings, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) in reviewing a district court’s Order granting summary judgment that suggested a patent was invalid. (“[T]he Court concludes that the ’628 patent is invalid.”) The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the district court to revise its judgment and clarify that the declaration of invalidity is limited to challenged claims of the patent.
This is an important distinction often overlooked by inventors and conveniently ignored by infringers. Whether a patent is invalid or infringed is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. This is the reason WHIPgroup regularly recommends filing continuation applications with various levels of protection (e.g. both narrow and broad claims). Thus, even if an infringer successfully finds invalidating prior art for some or all claims of one patent, it is still possible to obtain strong valid claims in a continuation application that are infringed.
WHIPgroup is leading counsel for U.S. and international technology companies. We specialize in patent and trademark law.
The SDNY recently granted a Motion to Dismiss in favor of WHIPgroup clinet, Koslow Technologies Corporation, securing a $18M Arbitration Award. Back in March, WHIPgroup client, Koslow Technologies Corporation (Koslow), was awarded a $18M Partial [Read More…]
Infogation Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit in EDTX against WHIPgroup client, TomTom International B.V. TomTom International B.V., a Netherlands corporation, was never served papers related to the lawsuit. However, service was attempted on TomTom [Read More…]
Koslow Technologies Corporation (Koslow) was sued in the SDNY in a 100-page complaint seeking over $1B on a contract claim related to gravity water filters which remove viruses. In addition to $1B, One World Filter [Read More…]