Sunday, October 10, 2010

Federal Circuit visits Atlanta

In the first week of November, the Federal Circuit will travel to my hometown of Atlanta to sit for oral arguments. The schedule, which includes a number of patent cases, can be found here at the 717 Madison Place blog. I'm particularly interested because the Atlanta arguments will include a BPAI case that I've been following, In re Jung.

On November 3, the IP Section of the Georgia Bar is co-sponsoring a reception and dinner to welcome the judges to Atlanta. A half-day CLE program will also be presented, as well as a case briefing on the cases to be argued. You can find information on the event here at the Atlanta Bar Association website. Note that you can register for each event separately. 


  1. Any links to In re Jung decisions/briefs, etc.?

  2. Woah. Counsel for appellant(s) raises some fascinating issues. But doesn't seem to understand that good writing is terse - it looks like the dictaphone has gotten away from him.

    I certainly admire counsel's attempt to force the BPAI to abide with strict formalism (re: the prima facie case). Yet I will be surprised if the CAFC chastises the BPAI for not following that formalism, if the panel believes that the claims really are unpatentable.

  3. >Any links to In re Jung decisions/briefs, >

    No. Fed Cir doesn't put briefs on Pacer. I read about Jung on Hal Wegner's Top 10 list, see

    The application serial number is 10/770,072, so you can pull the entire file history from PAIR.

  4. >I will be surprised if the CAFC chastises the
    >BPAI for not following that formalism,

    It's scary to think that something as fundamental as the requirement for a prima facie case is a "formalism".

    >if the panel believes that the claims really
    >are unpatentable.

    I would qualify that with "unpatentable on the record presented to the Fed Cir."

    I'd love to see a Fed Cir decision on the issues presented. But I think Jung is a terrible case for the prima facie issue.

    Jung is a case where the real issue is clearly claim construction. The Examiner put his claim construction on the record. Under that construction, the Examiner does have a PF case. No doubt about it in my mind.

    Now, the Applicant wants a narrower claim construction. Which is why broadest reasonable construction is another issue presented to the Fed Cir in this case.