Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 MARCH 2016

Federal Circuit Finds Written Description Support From Claim Terms Absent In The Specification

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

The Federal Circuit affirmed most of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) findings from Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews of Blue Calypso's patents.

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Federal Circuit affirmed most of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB's) findings from Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews of Blue Calypso's patents. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., Nos. 2015-1391, 2015-1393, 2015-1394, 2015-1396, 2015-1397, 2015-1398, 2015-1399, 2015-1401 (Fed. Cir. March 1, 2016).

Initially, the Federal Circuit held that PTAB did not exceed its authority, as the mere recitation of a computer does not make a patent ineligible for CBM review.

The PTAB found claim terms "endorsement tag" and "token" lacked written description support because the terms were absent from the specification of the patent. The Federal Circuit disagreed because: (i) the exact terms appearing in the claim need not be used verbatim in the specification; (ii) the totality of the patent's disclosure including the figures, the specification, and the claim languages provided support; and (iii) the terms were intended to refer to the same concept as "link" in the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from