Invalidity of IPXL claims affirmed in amazon case
The CAFC found 4 claims invalid for anticipation over a prior patent and one claim was invalid for being indefinite.
The CAFC cited Med. Instrumention, 344 F.3d 1205, for the proposition that anticipation is a question of fact. The IPXL case is interesting in that the anticipating reference (Coutts patent) had been before the USPTO during examination.
Claim 25 of the '055 patent was poorly drafted. Although to a "system," it required a user to use...
There was also an issue of attorneys fees, which issue was lost by Amazon.