Fresh From the Bench: Latest Precedential Patent Case
Contributed by Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt. Originally published on Patexia; republished here as part of the LexDana archive.
CASE OF THE WEEK
Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. LG Electronics Inc., Appeal Nos. 2023-2117, -2116 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2025)
Our Case of the Week focuses on the written description requirement, and, in particular, how that requirement is considered following a jury verdict that the written description requirement is satisfied.
Mondis’s patent in suit concerns computer monitors. It is titled “Display Unit with Communication Controller and Memory for Storing Identification Number for Identifying Display Unit.” The patent describes a system for controlling a specific display unit, such as a computer monitor, that is configured to receive video signals from an external source, such as a computer. The display unit’s memory stores one or more identification numbers. A computer may request control of a newly connected display unit by transmitting the computer’s individualized identification number, which the display unit then compares to a stored list of known identification numbers. If the computer’s identification number matches a registered identification number in the display unit’s memory, the computer can control aspects of the display unit, such as its brightness and contrast. If there is no matching identification number, the computer cannot control the display unit. The patent consistently describes a one-to-one relationship in which one identification number corresponds to one device. For example, the patent provides that “the microcomputer 7 in the display device 6 waits for sending of the identification number assigned to the computer 1, that is, the so-called ID number from the computer 1.” After this registration process, “the computer 1 is allowed to control the display device 6.”
Editors:
Nika Aldrich, IP Litigation Group Leader, Schwabe
Jason A. Wrubleski, Shareholder
More insights
Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidation of Patent for Lack of Enablement of Claims Directed to a Method of Treating a Patient with a Unit Dosage in Wyeth Llc v Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp
Written by : Eric Furman, Ph.D. and Ashley C. Morales Key Takeaway: Federal Circuit invalidates patent claims directed to a method for treating non-small cell lung cancer through administration of “a unit dosage” of an irreversible epidermal…
When About Becomes Indefinite Federal Circuit Provides Guidance for Life Science Patent Applications Regarding Limits of Approximation in Enviro Tech v Safe Foods
Written by : Jason J. Jardine and Kenneth O. Aruda, Ph.D. Key Takeaway: The term “about” remains useful in biotech and pharmaceutical claims, but only if the patent provides objective guidance about what the term means. Absent that guidance,…
When Any Patent Means No Patent Federal Circuit Reverses Non Specific Verdict
Written by : Brian C. Barnes and Sophia F. Zahn OLLNOVA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. v. ECOBEE TECHNOLOGIES ULC [OPINION] Before Chen , Cunningham, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary : A verdict form…