Loading...
 
Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied because Plaintiff patent satisfies both the written description requirement and the enablement requirement. Cases of Interest >  IP >  Patent

Hurrican Shooters v EMI Yoshi Inc

Hurricane Shooters v EMI Yoshi
US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division
2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 123196

FACTS: Plaintiff Hurricane Shooters owns a variety of patents for drinking glasses and barware. At issue are two patents ('812 patent and the '840 patent) involving plural chamber drinking cups for serving mixed drinks in bars and restaurants. Plaintiff claims Defendant EMI Yoshi has infringed patents.

PROCEDURE: Defendant moves for summary judgment of invalidity of the two patents due to Plaintiff's alleged failure to comply with 35 U.S.C § 112 - failure to include in the specifications a written description of the claimed inventions or how to use the claimed inventions.

HOLDING/ANALYSIS: Motion for summary judgment denied
35 U.S.C. § 112 sets forth two requirements for patent specification:
Written description - must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed
  • Test for sufficiency - whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date
  • Defendant must prove written description fails standards by clear and convincing evidence
  • Reasonable jury could find written description in combination with the drawings as sufficient to show the inventor had invented what is claimed
Enablement - satisfied when one skilled in the art, after reading the specification, could practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation
  • Party alleging invalidity for lack of enablement bears burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the specification of a challenged patent fails to teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make the invention
  • Reasonable jury could conclude that the specifications in combination with the drawings demonstrate how to use the invention

IMPORTANT DICTA: None
LIKELY FUTURE IMPORTANCE OR UNANSWERED QUESTIONS: None


Contributors to this page: deglio149 .
Page last modified on Wednesday 01 of December, 2010 19:55:54 GMT by deglio149.
Portions © 2006-2019 by Michael Risch, Some Rights Reserved | Copyright Notice| Legal Disclaimer