1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Wherefore Software In Analyzing Substantial Transformation

Wherefore Software In Analyzing Substantial Transformation

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.10.10

On August 6, 2010, Customs & Border Protection (CBP) published a final determination (75 Fed. Reg. 47609) that Avaya’s Unified Communication Solution was substantially transformed in the United States based upon the totality of the circumstances including installation of the Communication Manager software and the extensive effort at the installation site to integrate the largely foreign hardware components into a working system. CBP rejected Avaya’s assertion that the installation location of software that provides the functionality of a system or hardware could be the sole determinant of substantial transformation under CBP’s prior precedent, as the origin of the software has also been an important factor, and noted here that most of the software development had occurred at Avaya’s Colorado facility, although some ongoing software development now occurs abroad.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25

From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....