Brooks Kushman P.C.

Federal Circuit Judges Voice Concern Over PTAB Practice of Denying AIA Petitions Based on “Redundancy”

In a recent oral argument, Federal Circuit judges criticized the USPTO practice of not instituting AIA post grant proceedings on grounds considered “redundant” of other grounds in a petition. The USPTO conceded that it uses…more

America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Proceedings, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction

See All Updates »

Federal Circuit Judges Voice Concern Over PTAB Practice of Denying AIA Petitions Based on “Redundancy”

In a recent oral argument, Federal Circuit judges criticized the USPTO practice of not instituting AIA post grant proceedings on grounds considered “redundant” of other grounds in a petition. The USPTO conceded that it uses…more

America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Proceedings, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction

See All Updates »

Sixth Circuit Tackles “Metaphysical Quandary” Of Design Separability: Rules That Cheerleader Uniform Graphics Are Protected By Copyright

Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, Case No. 14-5237, 2015 WL 4934282 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2015). Addressing a subtle issue of copyright law that has perplexed other district and appeals courts, the U.S. Court of…more

Appeals, Chevron Deference, Copyright, Copyright Registration, Copyrightable Subject Matter

See All Updates »

Patent Protection - Businesses that fail to heed new provisions of the America Invents Act run the risk of losing their ideas to others

Originally published in January - February 2013 | dbusiness.com. The America Invents Act represents the most significant reform of the United States patent system in 60 years. Signed into law in the fall of 2011, a number…more

America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Patents, First-to-File, First-to-Invent, Patent Reform

See All Updates »

In Rare Trademark Decision, Supreme Court Rules That “Tacking” Is A Jury Issue

On January 21, 2015, in its first substantive trademark case in over 10 years, the U. S. Supreme Court unanimously held that when a trademark owner attempts to establish priority based on an earlier use of a nearly-identical…more

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

See All Updates »

Federal Circuit Adopts USPTO Positions in Clarifying Ground Rules For CBM Review, Holds Versata Pricing Patent Invalid

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) introduced post-grant administrative proceedings as a new mechanism for challenging the validity of issued patents without the need to resort to federal court litigation. In a recent…more

Administrative Authority, America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Patents, Judicial Review, Patent Invalidity

See All Updates »

Federal Circuit Panel Reaffirms “Single Entity Rule” – One Infringer Must Be Responsible For Performing All Steps Of Methods Claims

On May 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit again considered the circumstances in which a defendant may be liable for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) when multiple actors carry out the…more

Akamai Technologies, Claim Construction, Covered Business Method Patents, Direct Infringement, Patent Infringement

See All Updates »

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Kessler Doctrine As A Patent Infringement Defense For Customers

Applying a doctrine dating to Kessler v. Eldred, 206 U.S. 285 (1907), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that when a patentee’s infringement action against the manufacturer of an accused product…more

Collateral Estoppel, Defense Strategies, Doctrine of Equivalents, Final Judgment, Kessler Doctrine

See All Updates »

Federal Circuit Limits “Divided Infringement” Defense – Precise Contours Of Direct Infringement Remain Uncertain

Practice Points - Federal Circuit finds Limelight liable for direct infringement even though Limelight’s customers performed certain steps of Akamai’s patented process. - Defendants may be liable as direct…more

Covered Business Method Patents, Direct Infringement, Divided Infringement, En Banc Review, Induced Infringement

See All Updates »

PTAB Decisions Add Some Clarity to Estoppel in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) created three new mechanisms for members of the public, including competitors, to challenge the validity of an issued U.S. Patent. As of June 30, 2015, 3,160 petitions for inter partes…more

America Invents Act, Claim Preclusion, CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Covered Business Method Patents, Estoppel

See All Updates »

Design Protection Goes Global: The Hague Agreement Will Change Industrial Design Strategies

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs, more commonly known as the “Hague Agreement,” is a treaty that establishes an international filing system for industrial design applications…more

Damages, Design Patent, Hague Agreement, Industrial Design, Patent Filings

See All Updates »

B&B Hardware – District Courts Consider Impact on Both Trademark and Patent Litigation

In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation…more

B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries, Collateral Estoppel, Infringement, Issue Preclusion, Likelihood of Confusion

See All Updates »

B&B Hardware – District Courts Consider Impact on Both Trademark and Patent Litigation

In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation…more

B&B Hardware v Hargis Industries, Collateral Estoppel, Infringement, Issue Preclusion, Likelihood of Confusion

See All Updates »

PTAB Panel Allows Joinder of Multiple IPR Proceedings Filed by Same Petitioner, Sharpens Disparity Between Panels Interpreting 35 U.S.C. § 315(c)

An expanded panel of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB” or “Board”) recently exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 315(c) to grant a motion to join an inter partes review proceeding with an already-initiated…more

35 U.S.C. § 315(c), Administrative Patent Judges, Inter Partes Review Proceedings, IPR, Joinder

See All Updates »

Omitted Inventors May Have Standing To Seek Patent Correction Based On “Reputational” Injury

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently ruled that a plaintiff not named as a joint inventor on several patents and pending patent applications has standing to maintain an action to correct inventorship under…more

Appeals, Breach of Contract, Corporate Counsel, Corrections, Intervenors

See All Updates »

Alice And The Abstract Idea

On June 19, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. _____ (2014) (Alice) struck down method claims related to mitigating “settlement risk” in financial transactions as being…more

Alice Corporation, CLS Bank, CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Mayo v. Prometheus, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

Alice And The Abstract Idea

On June 19, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. _____ (2014) (Alice) struck down method claims related to mitigating “settlement risk” in financial transactions as being…more

Alice Corporation, CLS Bank, CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Mayo v. Prometheus, Patent Litigation

See All Updates »

Recent Developments In Information Technology Law – Third Quarter 2014

The 2013-14 term of the Supreme Court ended with multiple decisions on intellectual property issues. Over the past few months, the Court issued a number of patent law related opinions covering ground from claim…more

CLS Bank v Alice Corp, Highmark v. Allcare, Limelight Networks, Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Octane Fitness v. ICON

See All Updates »

Contact

1000 Town Center Twenty-Second Floor
Southfield, Michigan 48075-1238, United States

  • (248) 358-4400
  • (248) 358-3351

Areas of Practice
  • Commercial Law & Contracts
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • California
  • Michigan
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.

"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.
×