SW Legal Educational Publishing

Patent Invalid for Anticipation Must Have Been Clearly Anticipated in Prior Patent
Description Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision invalidating a patent for anticipation because it was not clearly established at trial that previously issued patents had clearly anticipated the later issued patent.
Topic Intellectual Property
Key Words Patents; Anticipation; Infringement
C A S E   S U M M A R Y
Facts GE sued Nintendo, claiming that it infringed GE's '899 patent for television control circuitry for video game systems. Nintendo claimed that the GE patent was invalid because a Japanese patent anticipated or made obvious the invention covered by GE's later patent. The district court held that the GE patent was invalid for anticipation. GE appealed.
Decision Reversed in part. "A judgment of invalidity for anticipation requires that a single prior reference disclose every limitation in a patent claim." In this case, "There are ... genuinely disputed issues of material fact as to whether a particular limitation ... was known in the art at the time of the '899 filing, and the background knowledge held by one skilled in the art at the time of the '899 filing."
Citation General Electric Co. v. Nintnedo Co., - F.3d - (1999 WL 357623, Fed. Cir.)
or
179 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir., 1999)

Back to Intellectual Property Listings

©2000  South-Western, a division of Cengage Learning, Inc. Cengage Learning is a trademark used herein under license.