Annotated Patent Digest
First published in April 2005, the Annotated Patent Digest is an established “go-to” resource for federal judges, patent practitioners, and legal commentators addressing matters of U.S. patent law. Spanning more than 50,000 pages if printed out, the Annotated Patent Digest provides comprehensive coverage of U.S. patent law principles and authority, including statutes; legislative histories; PTO regulations; pertinent MPEP provisions; and Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, CCPA, and district court precedent addressing both substantive and procedural aspects of litigating patents or procuring patents in the PTO.
By reviewing and analyzing on a daily basis every Federal Circuit published and unpublished patent-related opinion, and almost all U.S. federal district court patent cases published on Westlaw, Mr. Matthews keeps himself and the Annotated Patent Digest continuously updated on the most recent legal developments and trends in U.S. patent litigation.
West, a Thomson-Reuters business and the nation’s largest legal publisher, publishes the Annotated Patent Digest electronically on its Westlaw database under the identifier “ANPATDIG.”
Judges from the Federal Circuit and the federal district courts have quoted from and relied on the Annotated Patent Digest in rendering rulings on dozens of patent matters. E.g., Arellano v. McDonough, 1 F.4th 1059, 1071 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc); Tubular Rollers, LLC v. Maximus Oilfield Prods., LLC, No. 2021-2319, 2023 WL 4230371, *10 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 28, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Reyna, J. dissenting); Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., 59 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023); Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Reyna, dissenting-in-part); Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1318, 1321-22, 1327, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Leviton Mfg. Corp. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc., 606 F.3d 1353, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Prost, J., dissenting); Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 557 F.3d 1346, 1351 n.* (Fed. Cir. 2009); Lasermarx, Inc. v. Hamskea Archery Solutions LLC, 2024 WL 1239940, *6 (D. Colo. Mar. 22, 2024); Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Microstrategy Inc., 2023 WL 5941736, *13 (E.D. Va. Sep. 12, 2023); GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2023 WL 6192744, *11 (C.D. Cal. Sep. 11, 2023); LKQ Corp. v. Kia Motors Am., Inc., 2023 WL 3455315, *2 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2023); Geomatrix Sys., LLC v. Eljen Corp., 668 F. Supp.3d 126, 135 & 139 (D. Conn. Apr. 11, 2023); DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Solutions L.L.C., 2023 WL 3443264, *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2023); Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc. v. ZF N. Am., Inc., 2022 WL 17540158, *4 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2022); Personal Audio, LLC v. Google LLC, 2022 WL 20801595, *5 (D. Del. Dec. 7, 2022); Science Applications Int’l. Corp. v. The United States, 2022 WL 17485581, *17 (Fed. Cl. Nov. 29, 2022); FullView, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc., 635 F.Supp.3d 917, 926 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022); Cambria Co. LLC v. Hirsch Glass Corp., 2022 WL 4031422, *2 (D.N.J. Sep. 2, 2022); Arigna Techs. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2022 WL 3448747, *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 16, 2022); Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc., 2022 WL 742443, *2 n.1 (E.D. La. Mar. 11, 2022); Seven Networks, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, 2022 WL 426589, *7 n.3 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2022); Soar Tools, LLC v. Mesquite Oil Tools, Inc., 2022 WL 1447946, *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2022); Kewazinga Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 2021 WL 4066596, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2021); Low Temp Indus., Inc. v. Duke Mfg. Co., 2021 WL 2634671, *8 (E.D. Mo. Jun. 25, 2021); Mardiros v. City of Hope, 2021 WL 3126987, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2021); Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 2021 WL 2075677, *5 (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2021); Biedermann Techs GmbH v. K2M, Inc., 2021 WL 1143767, *20, *21, *24 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2021); Golden Eye Media USA, Inc. v. Trolley Bags UK Ltd, 2021 WL 966533, *23 n.8 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2021); Glaxo Gp. Ltd. v. DRIT LP, 2021 WL 803878, *2 n.5 (Del. Mar. 3, 2021); DeCurtis, LLC v. Carnival Corp., 2021 WL 7539904, *10 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 9, 2021); Bryan v. Wenhaven, Inc., 2020 WL 7980291,*3 n.33, 56, 58 (V.I.Super. Sep. 29, 2020); Sundesa, LLC v. IQ Forumulations, LLC, 2020 WL 8125541, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020); In re C2R Global Mfg., Inc., 2020 WL 3127473, *1 n.1 (E.D. Wis. May 14, 2020); Groskop v. S&T Bank, 471 P.3d 274, 288 (Wy. 2020); Signify N. Am. Corp. v. Reggiani Lighting USA, Inc., 2020 WL 1331919, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2020); Sunoco Partners Marketing & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC, 2020 WL 1234822, *2 (D. Del. Mar. 13, 2020); Olmos v. Well Path, 2020 WL 4550465 (D. Az. Feb. 5, 2020); Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp., 2019 WL 4737051, *5 (E.D. Tex. Sep, 27, 2019); Arason Enter., Inc. v. CabinetBed Inc., 2019 WL 4597863, *3 (D. Colo. Sep. 23, 2019); Izzo Golf Inc. v. King Par Golf Inc., 2019 WL 4023562, *10 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2019); BASF Plant Science, LP v. CSIRO, 2019 WL 2017541, *3 (E.D. Va. May 7, 2019); Walker v. Spina, 2019 WL 145626, *9 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2019); Realtime Data LLC v. Echostar Corp., 2018 WL 11335572, *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2018); Realtime Data, LLC v. EchoStar Corp., 2018 WL 11364376, *3 n.5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 16, 2018); Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 2018 WL 3634589, *6 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2018); Spigen Korea Co. Ltd v. Ispeaker Co. Ltd., 2018 WL 6038300, *30 (C.D. Cal. Jul. 16, 2018); CLM Analogs, LLC v. James R. Glidewell Dental Ceramics, Inc., 2018 WL 6380887, *4 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2018); The Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 2018 WL 3032846, *3 (S.D. Cal. Jun. 19, 2018); U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, 2018 WL 2390116, *5 (W.D. Wis. May 25, 2018); Clinicomp Intern., Inc. v. Cerner Corp., 2018 WL 2229364, *5 (S.D. Cal. May 16, 2018); Whirlpool Corp. v. TST Water, LLC, 2018 WL 1536875, *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018); Nat’l. Prods., Inc. v. Arkon Resources, Inc., 2018 WL 1457254, *7 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 23, 2018); Aster Graphics, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 2018 WL 2425973, *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2018); LF Centennial Ltd. v. Inovex Furnishings Corp., 2017 WL 9486124, *6 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2017); Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 2017 WL 4776443, *13 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2017); Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. ZOLL LifeCor Corp., 2017 WL 4764670, *3 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 20, 2017); Packet Intelligence LLC v. NetScout Sys., Inc., 2017 WL 11631146, *6-*7 (E.D. Tex. Sep, 29, 2017); Drop Stop LLC v. Zhu, 2017 WL 3452990, *4 (C.D. Cal. Jun. 20, 2017); ABT Sys, LLC v. Research Products Corp., 2017 WL 2573048, *2 (M.D. Pa. Jun. 14, 2017); D Three Enterprises, LLC v. Rillito River Solar LLC, 2017 WL 1023389, *6 (D. Colo. Mar. 15, 2017); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 2017 WL 446885, *4 n.6 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2017); Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. MTA, 2016 6652712, *8 (D.Md. Nov. 9, 2016); Ceres Protein LLC v. Thompson Mechanical & Design, 2016 WL 6090966, *10 n.8 (W.D.Ky. Oct. 17, 2016); Front Row Techs., LLC v. NBA Media Ventures, LLC, 2016 WL 5404084 (D.N.M. Aug. 30, 2016); Howard v. Ford Motor Co., 2016 WL 4077260, *1, n.1(S.D.Miss. Jul. 29, 2016); Razer Auto, Inc. v. Omix-Ada, Inc., 2016 WL 6678008, *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2016); Leon v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2016 WL 1158079, *11 (D.N.M. Mar. 1, 2016); Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corp., 2015 WL 13238450, *2 (D. Nev. Dec. 18, 2015); Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2005 WL 5822585, *4 (C.D.Cal. Sep. 29, 2015); Ferring B.V. v. Allergan, Inc., 2015 WL 5671799, *9 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 2015); Gen. Protecht Gp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 122 F.Supp.3d 1114, 1133, n.11, (D.N.M. Aug. 3, 2015); Sioux Pharm. Inc. v. Eagle Labs. Inc., 865 N.W.2d 528, 536 (Iowa Jun. 26, 2015); Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Hawaiian Telcom, Inc., 2015 WL 12776595, *4, n.4 (D.Haw. Feb. 2, 2015); Certusview Techs. v. USIC, 2014 WL 12591937, *15 (E.D.Va. Dec. 15, 2014); Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Commun’s., Inc., 2014 WL 4829173, *7 (W.D.Wis. Sep. 29, 2014); Lamson v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 755, 763, n.6 (Fed.Cl. Jul. 31, 2014); Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 29 F.Supp.3d 85, 103-04 (D.Conn. Jun. 27, 2014); Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc. v. Arctic Cat, Inc., 2014 WL 2945877, *4 (D.Minn. Apr. 28, 2014); Mobile Telecommunications Techs., LLC v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 2014 WL 1274003, *6 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 17, 2014); Arctic Cat, Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc., 2014 WL 12601033, *3 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2014); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2014 WL 12596470, *4 n.43 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 29, 2014); TASER Int’l., Inc. v. Karbon Arms, LLC, 6 F.Supp.3d 510, 519 (D.Del. Dec. 19, 2013), WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 953 F.Supp.2d 731, 756 (S.D.Tex. Jun. 19, 2013); Deniece Design, LLC v. Braun, 953 F.Supp.2d 765, 775 (S.D.Tex. Jun. 19, 2013); Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 2013 WL 1821593, *3 (M.D.Pa. Apr. 30, 2013); Music Group Services US, Inc. v. inMusic Brands, Inc., 2013 WL 1499564, *2 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 11, 2013); Clifton-Draper v. Pelam Intern., Ltd., 2013 WL 1499564, *2 (M.D.Fla. Feb. 19, 2013); Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Advanced Image Direct, LLC. 2013 WL 8596579, *8 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 30, 2013); Axcess Int’l., Inc. v. Savi Techs., Inc., 2013 WL 6839112, *8 (N.D.Tex. Jan. 25, 2013); Vita-Herb Nutriceuticals Inc. v. Probiohealth LLC, 2012 WL 3903454, *7 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 6, 2012); Pictometry Int’l. Corp. v. GEOSPAN Corp., 2012 WL 3679208, *5 (D.Minn. Aug. 17, 2012); Proxyconn Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2012 WL 1835680, *5 (C.D.Cal. May 16, 2012); High Point SARL v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 2012 WL 234024, *15 (D.Kan. Jan. 25, 2012); Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Nagata, 2012 WL 177557, *7 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 23, 2012); WesternGeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 2011 WL 3608382, *10 (S.D.Tex. Aug. 16, 2011); Johnson Outdoors Inc. v. Navico, Inc., 774 F. Supp.2d 1191, 1196 (M.D.Ala. Mar. 2, 2011); Agsouth Genetics, LLC v. Georgia Farm Serv., LLC, 2011 WL 13187172, *3 (M.D. Ga Feb. 11, 2011); August Technology Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd., 2010 WL 5560088, *2 (D.Minn. Nov. 17, 2010); Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., L.L.C. v. Dell Inc., 2010 WL 2733319, *7 (D.Utah Jul. 9, 2010); Hoskins v. Gunn Trucking, 2009 WL 2970399, *3 n.1 (N.D.Ind. Sept. 14, 2009); DR Sys., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 2009 WL 2632685, *4 (S.D.Cal. Aug. 24, 2009); Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Dell, Inc., No. 1:05-CV-64 TS, 2008 WL 4862510, *2 n.12 (D.Utah Nov. 7, 2008); Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., L.L.C. v. Dell Inc., 2008 WL 4569895, *2 (D.Utah Oct. 9, 2008); Emcore Corp. v. Optium Corp., 2008 WL 3271553, *6 (W.D.Pa. Aug. 5, 2008); Renhcol Inc. v. Don Best Sports, 548 F. Supp. 2d 356, 361 n.3 (E.D. Tex. April 28, 2008); Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Magellan Navigation, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1176 (W.D.Wis. Aug. 31, 2007); Amgen v. F. Hoffman-LaRoche, Ltd., 456 F. Supp. 2d 267, 283 (D.Mass. Oct. 20, 2006); Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 2005 WL 5989796, *16 (E.D.Mo. Oct. 28, 2005).
Internationally, lawyers and commentators from outside the U.S. have also relied on the Annotated Patent Digest when discussing aspects of U.S. patent law in judicial pleadings in foreign proceedings and academic papers.
Based on his years of experience in crafting patent briefs and understanding what practitioners truly need from a treatise to draft-winning briefs, Mr. Matthews engineered the structure of the case cites of the Annotated Patent Digest to quickly provide a practitioner with sufficient information to know if a case likely has true merit for citing in a brief or a response to a PTO office action.
As a significant point of distinction, most treatises contain footnote string cites to support a stated legal proposition. These footnote string cites often do not include information critical to knowing whether the case is worth citing in a brief or to fully understand the factual context of when a given legal proposition properly applies. Indeed, many footnote string cites include a case cite and perhaps a quote stating the legal proposition, but upon reading the case it becomes evident that the court found an exception to the proposition or merely stated the proposition in passing dicta. Such case cites do not instill persuasive power to a brief.
In the Annotated Patent Digest, instead of footnote string cites, Matthews provides individual case cites having detailed parentheticals. Each case parenthetical typically includes three important elements: i) a quotable quote from the court stating the legal proposition; ii), a summary of the relevant facts and how the court applied the proposition in view of those facts; and iii) the ultimate outcome of the case. Armed with this information, a practitioner will quickly know whether a given case is likely to support a contention made in a brief, opinion, or PTO response.
As shown by the Chapter Listings, the Annotated Patent Digest covers the full spectrum of issues encountered in litigating patents and a wealth of material applicable to prosecuting patent applications before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Of its forty-four chapters, thirty four are directed to substantive issues of patent law. The remaining ten chapters address procedural issues as applied specifically to patent litigation. In each chapter, the significant legal aspects of the subject matter are presented in numerous individual sections and organized with a comprehensive table of contents for ease of searching.