Intellectual Property Law

Combining two embodiments in same prior art patent "does not require a leap of inventiveness"

By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court's denial of judgment as a matter of law of obviousness.  A jury held the claim at issue was not obvious, and the district court denied the defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue.

While the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's construction of two disputed claim terms, according to the Federal Circuit, a single reference disclosing multiple embodiments in sequential drawings that disclosed all the claim limitations rendered the claim in question obvious.  

More details of Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp. after the jump.

[More]

Full post as published by FileWrapper on March 30, 2009 (boomark / email).