In Re Gary M. Beauregard, Larry K. Loucks, Khoa Dang Nguyen and Robert J. Urquhart

53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1383, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10565, 1995 WL 286698
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
DecidedMay 12, 1995
Docket95-1054
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 53 F.3d 1583 (In Re Gary M. Beauregard, Larry K. Loucks, Khoa Dang Nguyen and Robert J. Urquhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Gary M. Beauregard, Larry K. Loucks, Khoa Dang Nguyen and Robert J. Urquhart, 53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1383, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10565, 1995 WL 286698 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

Opinion

ON MOTION

ORDER

ARCHER, Chief Judge.

The Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks moves to dismiss Gary M. Beauregard *1584 et al.’s appeal. Beauregard responds stating that vacatur or reversal of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ decision and remand to the Board is the appropriate disposition. Beauregard requests that the remand order be issued as a precedential order.

Briefly, on August 4, 1994, the Board rejected Beauregard’s computer program product claims on the basis of the printed matter doctrine. Beauregard appealed. The Commissioner now states “that computer programs embodied in a tangible medium, such as floppy diskettes, are patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and must be examined under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.” The Commissioner states that he agrees with Beauregard’s position on appeal that the printed matter doctrine is not applicable. Thus, the parties are in agreement that no case or controversy presently exists.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Board’s decision is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with the Commissioner’s concessions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

East Coast Sheet Metal Fabricating Corp. v. Autodesk
2015 DNH 011 (D. New Hampshire, 2015)
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
717 F.3d 1269 (Federal Circuit, 2013)
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
877 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. California, 2012)
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec
659 F.3d 1057 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
654 F.3d 1366 (Federal Circuit, 2011)
CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
768 F. Supp. 2d 221 (District of Columbia, 2011)
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
620 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (N.D. California, 2009)
In Re Nuijten
515 F.3d 1361 (Federal Circuit, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 F.3d 1583, 35 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1383, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10565, 1995 WL 286698, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gary-m-beauregard-larry-k-loucks-khoa-dang-nguyen-and-robert-j-cafc-1995.