Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Federal Circuit IPR Scoreboard PTAB: 2 Patent Owner: 0

Last week the Federal Circuit issued its first decision in an appeal of a final decision from a post-issuance review proceeding under the America Invents Act. In a 2-1 decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and…more

Auto Manufacturers, Automotive Industry, Garmin International, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Obviousness

See All Updates »

Global PHP And IP5 – Latest Iteration In The Patent Prosecution Highway

The Patent Prosecution Highway (also referred to as the “PPH”)embodies numerous bilateral agreements between dozens of countries providing that an indication of allowable subject matter in one country may trigger accelerated…more

Patent Litigation, Patent Prosecution Highway, Patents

See All Updates »

Octane Fitness v. Icon and Highmark v. Allcare — Pivotal Changes to Court Awarded Attorney’s Fees in Patent Litigations

April 30, 2014 - On Tuesday, in two unanimous decisions, the Supreme Court laid down a pair of pivotal changes to the rules governing court awarded attorney's fees in patent litigations... Please see full alert below for…more

Attorney's Fees, Highmark v. Allcare, Octane Fitness v. ICON, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Considers Whether ITC Can Properly Exclude Imported Products That Only Infringe After Importation

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit sitting en banc heard oral arguments in Suprema, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Fed. Cir., No. 2012-1170, a case involving the ability of the International Trade…more

Appeals, En Banc Review, Imports, Induced Infringement, ITC

See All Updates »

The Google Books Case – Here’s the Skinny

I’m sure many of us have fond memories of the venerable library card catalog: the musty smell, the tiny wooden drawers and their endless deck of equally tiny, yellowed cards on which someone laboriously typed the Dewey Decimal…more

Copyright, Fair Use, Google, Google Books

See All Updates »

Supreme Court Debates Laches Defense — Change Is Coming

Jan. 22, 2014 — In an energetic oral argument on Jan. 21 that would have made first-year law students cringe, the Supreme Court debated the proper role of laches as a defense against the backdrops of statutory language versus…more

Copyright, Equitable Relief, Laches, MGM, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

PTAB Continues to Deny IPR Petitions, Based on Arguments Incorporated By Reference

September 22, 2014 – For the second time in a month (see our previous PTAB Highlight regarding IPR2014-00491 below), the PTAB has refused to consider arguments incorporated by reference into an IPR petition…more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Considers Whether Judge or Jury Should Tackle Trademark “Tacking”

On December 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank et al., on writ of certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This is the…more

Appeals, Hana Financial v Hana Bank, Oral Argument, Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Popular

See All Updates »

“Do the Due”: Performing proper diligence when assessing IP assets for acquisition - Knowing all of the benefits and issues before acquisition is the only way to ensure a well-reasoned patent acquisition

The concept of due diligence often arises when intellectual property (IP) assets become available for potential acquisition. Any number of reasons may lead to this availability. An asset may be for sale due to an entity going…more

Business Assets, Due Diligence, Patents

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Overturns De Novo Review of Patent Claim Construction

On Tuesday, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., the Supreme Court reversed long-standing Federal Circuit precedent under which patent claim construction was reviewed wholly de novo. Specifically, the Court held…more

Claim Construction, Clear Error Standard, De Novo Standard of Review, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

Supreme Court Marks TTAB Decisions as Having Preclusive Effect

The Supreme Court of the United States held in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., that some decisions by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) may have a preclusive effect on judgments by federal district…more

B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries, Issue Preclusion, Likelihood of Confusion, SCOTUS, Trademark Infringement

See All Updates »

PTAB Provides Guidance for Meeting Burden to Show Written Description for Substitute Claim

September 24, 2014 – In a Final Written Decision finding the patentee’s claim 1 unpatentable, the PTAB denied a motion to add a substitute claim that added hundreds of words to challenged claim 1. The PTAB held that the patentee…more

Burden of Proof, Patent Infringement, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in ABC v. Aereo

On June 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided American Broadcasting Companies, et al. v. Aereo. The 6-3 ruling holds that Aereo’s business model of streaming live broadcast television content over the Internet to its users,…more

ABC, ABC v Aereo, Aereo, Broadcasting, Cable Television Providers

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: The Supreme Court Points Courts to Juries on Issue of Trademark Tacking

On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that trademark tacking is an inquiry that operates from the perspective of an…more

Hana Financial v Hana Bank, Jury Questions, Likelihood of Confusion, SCOTUS, Tacking

See All Updates »

Use Wayback Machine with Caution: PTAB Excludes Website Printouts from Wayback Machine

In a decision on the patent owner’s motion to exclude evidence, the PTAB excluded certain website printouts from the Wayback Machine as lacking authentication…more

Authentication, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Websites

See All Updates »

Intellectual Property Alert: Year-End Brings New Developments in Patent Eligibility

Section 101 of the Patent Act (35 U.S.C. 101) continues to be of concern for patent practitioners, patent applicants and patent owners. The language of this statute defines what constitutes patent eligible subject matter, as…more

See All Updates »

PTAB Cracking Down on Serial IPR Petitions

November 4, 2014 — The estoppels of 35 U.S.C. §315(e)(1) don’t kick in to bar a petitioner from filing a second inter partes review petition against the same patent until a final written decision is rendered in the first. Hence,…more

Estoppel, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Prior Art

See All Updates »

Three Rounds to Knock Out Ultramercial’s Patent on “Advertising as Currency”

After sparring three separate rounds at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in a panel opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of Defendant WildTangent’s pre-answer…more

Appeals, Motion to Dismiss, Online Advertisements, Patent Litigation, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

See All Updates »

Benefits of Showing Discovery as “Routine” Instead of “Additional”

The PTAB issued an order granting in part a request for discovery by an IPR petitioner. IPR2014-00727 - C&D Zodiac, Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc…more

America Invents Act, Discovery, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

POSITA Motivated to Pursue Clinical Development of Therapy Disclosed in Prior Art Despite Potential Safety and Efficacy Hurdles

The PTAB recently held that the challenged claims in two patents assigned to Genzyme and one patent assigned to Duke University on methods for treating Pompe disease are invalid…more

Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, Pharmaceutical, Pharmaceutical Patents, Prior Art

See All Updates »

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Definiteness Standard

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. involving the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b). The patent at issue relates to a heart rate monitor capable of…more

Claim Construction, Indefiniteness, Medical Devices, Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Patent Infringement

See All Updates »

A Slip of the Pen May Cost You Your IPR

The Patent Office is getting inter partes review (IPR) petitions by the boat load. Some patent challengers are adding to the volume by filing numerous IPRs against a single patent. They use each IPR for a distinct set of claims…more

America Invents Act, Ford Motor, Intellectual Property Litigation, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Infringement

See All Updates »

PTAB Provides Guidance for Demonstrating Prior Invention to Overcome 102(a) Challenge

In a Final Written Decision finding the patent owner’s claims unpatentable, the PTAB provided guidance on establishing prior invention to overcome a challenge under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). The PTAB also commented concerning the…more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Patent Litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

First IPR Design Patent Decision Affirmed by Federal Circuit

In the first inter partes review of a design patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision that the only claim was unpatentable. Design patent D617,465 on a drinking cup was the subject…more

Design Patent, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Obviousness, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents

See All Updates »

Developments in Patent Law 2013; The D.C. Bar Year in Review

In this article: - Patentability, Validity, and Procurement of Patents - Interpretation and Infringement of Patents - Enforcement of Patents - Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court - Excerpt from…more

AMP v Myriad, Apple, Attorney's Fees, Claim Construction, CLS Bank v Alice Corp

See All Updates »

Contact

Ten South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7407, United States

  • 312.463.5000
  • 312.463.5001

Areas of Practice
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • D.C.
  • Massachusetts
  • Oregon
Number of Attorneys

50-100 Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×