"In summary, we affirm the district court’s decision that claims 1-35 are invalid as indefinite. Because we hold that under the proper construction of claim 36, claims 36-38 are anticipated as a matter of law, we reverse the district court’s failure to grant JMOL (Judgment as a Matter of Law) on that issue. We do not reach Desire2Learn’s assertion that claims 36-38 are obvious. We also do not address the parties’ contentions with respect to infringement of those claims. Based on our rulings in appeals No. 2008-1368 and 2008-1396, Blackboard’s appeal in No. 2008-1548, which pertains to the award of costs in the district court, is dismissed as moot. Each party shall bear its own costs for these appeals. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and DISMISSED IN PART."
Desire2Learn reports on today's Court of Appeal decision, from which the above excerpt is the conclusion, arguing that the judgement represents an across-the-board ruling in favour of D2L. Though I do not doubt that the decision represents at least a bit of a setback for Blackboard, I have a "wait and see" feeling about what the full implications of the decision are; and it is patent lawyer commentary that I am now most interested in reading. [30/7/2009. Below are some links to such commentary.]
- 28/7/2009 - Bruce T Weider, of DowLohnes PLLC;
- 29/7/2009 - by Jim Singer, a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Pepper Hamilton LLP;
- 30/7/2009 - detailed explanation as to why the Court of Appeal found against Blackboard in "Patents and the Financial Services Industry", edited by Christopher Hilberg, Patent Attorney with Oppenheimer Wolff and Donnelly;
- 31/7/2009 - Michael C. Smith of Siebman, Reynolds, Burg, Phillips and Smith, LLP - a brief and intelligible summary.