Bridget Smith

Bridget Smith

Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP

Contact  |  View Bio  |  RSS

Latest Publications

Share:

Determining Patent Eligibility Pre-Claim Construction May Be Premature

For the third time in two months, the Federal Circuit took on patent subject-matter eligibility in Amdocs (ISRAEL) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held...more

11/22/2016 - Abstract Ideas Appeals Claim Construction CLS Bank v Alice Corp Computer-Related Inventions Mayo v. Prometheus Patent Infringement Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Popular USPTO

Software Patent Eligibility: Preemption Gets Starring Role at the Federal Circuit

The Supreme Court decision Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) pronounced, in no uncertain terms, preemption “drives” patent subject matter eligibility and its exceptions. But after Alice, it appeared preemption’s...more

10/4/2016 - Appeals Ariosa CLS Bank v Alice Corp Evidence Mootness Myriad-Mayo Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Patents Preemption Prior Art Reversal Sequenom Software Patents

Supreme Court Affirms Broader Claim Construction Standard in IPRs

PTAB’s Institution Decision Remains Largely Unreviewable - What You Need To Know - Summary - In its first case addressing an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), the Supreme Court’s In re Cuozzo decision unanimously...more

6/21/2016 - America Invents Act Appeals Broadest Reasonable Interpretation Standard Claim Construction Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee Final Judgment Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Judicial Review Patent Trial and Appeal Board SCOTUS Standard of Review USPTO

ITC Powerless to Block Importation of Infringing Digital Files

The Federal Circuit held that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) could not block the import of infringing digital files because the ITC lacked jurisdiction. According to the Federal Circuit, the term “articles”...more

11/11/2015 - Administrative Authority Chevron Deference Digital Data Imports Infringement ITC Jurisdiction Section 337 Software Developers Tariff Act of 1930

Catalog Search Posted On Claim Preclusion Does Not Bar Additional Discovery Relating to Privity Challenge in Later-Filed IPR...

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated a decision granting a request for additional discovery as an informative opinion. Informative opinions are not binding; they rather provide guidance on rules and...more

7/30/2015 - Additional Discovery Claim Preclusion Discovery Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Post-Grant Review Privity of Contract

CBM Claims Not Addressed in the PTAB's Final Decision May Be Challenged in a Follow-On CBM Proceeding

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board added a decision declining to apply estoppel under 35 USC 325(e)(1) to dismiss a follow-on CBM proceeding in Westlake Services LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176 to the...more

7/23/2015 - Covered Business Method Patents Estoppel Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Post-Grant Review

PTAB Estops Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Based New Combinations of Prior Art Raised in Earlier Petition

Dell, Inc. v. Electronics & Telecommunications Research Institute, IPR2015-00549, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2015) - The Board recently added a decision denying inter partes review in Dell, Inc. v. Electronics &...more

5/8/2015 - Dell Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Infringement Patents Prior Art Statute of Limitations

PTAB Guides Patent Owners on Motions to Amend

The Board recently added an order in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, to its list of Representative Decisions on Motion to Amend on the Board’s web site. The decision outlines in...more

11/25/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Motion to Amend Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents

PTAB Exercises Discretion When Rejecting Follow-On Petition Filed More Than One Year After Service of the Complaint with...

The AIA sets a one-year deadline to file a petition for IPR of a patent from the date a complaint for patent infringement is served. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). There is an exception: the bar does not apply when joining a second...more

10/10/2014 - America Invents Act Patent Litigation Patent Reform Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review When Ongoing Proceedings Raise Substantially Similar Arguments

In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more

10/9/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Medtronic Patent Litigation Patents Prior Art

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petition by Same...

Petitioner Unilever filed an earlier petition for IPR of 33 claims of a patent. In the Decision on Institution, the Board denied review of 11 claims and granted review of the rest. Unilever then filed a second petition for...more

10/9/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art Unilever

PTAB Declines to Institute Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Based on "New" Reference

In January 2013, Petitioner IBS filed a petition for IPR. Five months later, IBS filed a second petition for IPR on the same patent claims. The follow-on petition relied on art from the first petition and other prior art,...more

10/9/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Petitions for Review Prior Art

PTAB Denies Petition for Inter Partes Review Remedying "Noted Deficiency" in Previously Denied Petition

Petitioner Metronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a third petition for IPR of the patent that...more

10/8/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Medtronic Patent Litigation Patents

PTAB Denies Follow-On Petition for Inter Partes Review Including Prior Art and Arguments Raised in Earlier Petitions by Different...

Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent. Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the Board had instituted trial on two of those three...more

10/8/2014 - Appeals Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art

PTAB Declines to Revisit Written Description and Prior Art Issues Considered During Prosecution in IPR

In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009. Petitioner PRISM argued the challenged claims lacked written...more

10/7/2014 - Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding Patent Litigation Patent Trial and Appeal Board Patents Prior Art Written Descriptions

Supreme Court Update: Four Important Decisions for IP

In the recent cases OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. and HIGHMARK INC. v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., the U.S. Supreme Court empowered district court judges to award attorney fees to prevailing...more

6/13/2014 - Akamai Technologies Attorney's Fees Exceptional Case Fee-Shifting Highmark v. Allcare Induced Infringement Limelight Limelight Networks Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Octane Fitness v. ICON Patent Infringement Patent Litigation Patents SCOTUS USPTO

Weak Patent Case? Think Twice Before Filing, In Light of Two 'Exceptional' SCOTUS Decisions

In light of these decisions, patentees with weak cases may think twice about filing, now that they face a credible risk of having to pay defendants’ attorney fees. By the same token, accused infringers with questionable...more

5/1/2014 - Attorney's Fees First Glance Highmark v. Allcare Legal Perspectives Octane Fitness v. ICON Patent Litigation Patent Trolls Patents SCOTUS

Protecting and Enforcing your High Technology Intellectual Property

In This Presentation: - Software Patents Issues in the USPTO - Functional Claiming in Software Patents - Covered Business Method (CBM) Review - Will the Supreme Court kill all software patents this term? -...more

4/21/2014 - Covered Business Method Patents Patent Applications Patent Reform Patents Technology USPTO

18 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×