Summary: Broadcast holds patented data-casting distributed-database technology that was originally claimed in a series of three Australian patents; followed by a single, consolidated PCT application; followed by a U.S. national stage application; followed by a continuation; followed by a divisional. The divisional, which the lower court found anticipated, claimed priority only to the national stage application and the continuation. The C.A.F.C. clarified 35 U.S.C. 120 by holding that an application claiming priority to an earlier application receives the benefit of the earlier application's priority date. Reversing the holding of anticipation, the court found that the divisional should receive the benefit of the PCT application's priority date. See also, MP3: Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted) PDF: Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications (Fed. Cir. 2005) (full text) Patently-O: CAFC: Continuation Application Need Not Claim Priority to PCT Application I/P Updates: Priority Claim to National Stage Application Receives Benefit of PCT Filing Date IP Law Observer: Filing Date of PCT International Application Established Priority Date for Later Filed United States Application
