D Three was on notice that it needed to present its entire argument and evidence why the patents-in-suit could claim the benefit of the earlier effective filing date and had ample opportunity to respond.D Three did respond in its reply and at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment.Because the patents-in-suit broadly claimed washerless assemblies with any type of attachment bracket, the claims were not supported by the 2009 Application and could not claim the benefit of the earlier effective filing date.The district court did not violate Rule 56(f) by deciding the written description issue on summary judgment.On May 21, 2018, the Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Wallach, ruled that patent owner D Three could not claim priority from U. Sun Modo and Eco Fasten filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that D Three could not claim priority to the 2009 Application because the claims of the asserted patents were broader than the invention disclosed in the 2009 Application. 61/150,301 (“the 2009 Application”), affirming the U. Federal District Court for the District of Colorado. The parties agreed that the patents would be invalid without the benefit of the 2009 Application.
He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions.This Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders.Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation.He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields.His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution.Each week, partners Joe Robinson and Bob Schaffer, succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions.They provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings.In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases.In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions.For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. 8,689,517 (“the ‘517 patent”), 9,068,339 (“the ‘339 patent”), and 8,707,655 (“the ‘655 patent”), which are directed to roof mount sealing assemblies.The district court agreed, finding that the asserted claims lacked written description support in the earlier 2009 Application.The 2009 Application disclosed one washerless assembly, consistently described as having only one type of attachment bracket—a no. The washerless assemblies claimed by the patents-in-suit were not attachment brackets with W-shaped prongs.