Skip Navigation


Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice Advance Access originally published online on May 11, 2006
Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 2006 1(7):435-437; doi:10.1093/jiplp/jpl063
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1/7/435    most recent
jpl063v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Anderson, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Current Intelligence

Generic software patent claim invalidated for lack of adequate written description

D. Richard Anderson
Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch Virginia, USA

In a patent infringement action involving claims to a software-implemented image compression algorithm, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has invoked the 'written description' requirement of the US Patent Code (35 USC section 112(1)) to invalidate a generic claim, concluding that the single disclosed embodiment does not support such a broad claim.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.