Patent Office Litigation Update: Lessons Learned from Contested Proceedings at the USPTO
Patent Office Litigation Update: Recommendations Following First Five IPR Trials Instituted
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has issued its first-ever decision in proceedings for challenging business method patents in post-grant review. The case is SAP America, Inc. v....more
Patent Exhaustion Rejected: Patented Seed Purchaser Has No Right to Make Copies: Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - In a narrow ruling that reaffirms the scope of patent protection over seeds, and possibly over other...more
In This Presentation: Top 10 Q’s & A’s About Patent Litigation: - 1. Can I Infringe a Patent If I Am Not Aware of It? - 2. How Do I Tell Whether a Patent is Infringed? - Novelty/Validity vs. Infringement...more
Much has and will continue to be written about the Federal Circuit's en banc decision in CLS Bank Int'l v. Alice Corp. last week, and most of the commentary has and will be critical of the path the court took in arriving at...more
In Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States, the Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction applied by the Court of Federal Claims when it held that the United States and IBM Corporation did not infringe the...more
[P]ermitting state courts to adjudicate disparagement cases (involving alleged false statements about U.S. patent rights) could result in inconsistent judgments between state and federal courts [but] this possibility of...more
In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s finding that the claims at issue were invalid as indefinite, because the claims were not “insolubly ambiguous.” This case...more
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting May Exist When There Is Neither Common Ownership nor Common Inventorship - Addressing an obviousness-type double patenting rejection, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
On April 26, 2013, in Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Schall, Wallach*) reversed and remanded the district court's summary judgment that U.S. Patent No....more
On April 19, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s judgment of invalidity because the defendant had not cross-appealed invalidity in a prior appeal involving the defendant’s winning judgment of...more
On April 19, 2013, in Lazare Kaplan Int'l, Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Lourie,* Dyk, Reyna) reversed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's summary...more
At 10:00 A.M. on April 15th, the U.S. Supreme Court will entertain oral arguments in the dispute now known as the human “gene patenting” case. The Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., No. 12-398...more
Yesterday, we posted a response from Dr. Chris Mason of Cornell University to a recent Patent Docs post and an article posted by Dr. Chris Holman on Holman's Biotech IP Blog. Dr. Mason co-authored an article in the current...more
On March 15, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a rehearing en banc in Lighting Ballast Control, LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp, et al. This order sets the stage for a potential change...more
In this video, Eldora L. Ellison, Ph.D., director with the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., discusses lessons learned from pending inter partes review and covered business method...more
On March 13, 2013, in Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int' Game Tech., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (O'Malley,* Bryson, Linn) affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded the district court's...more
In a nonprecedential order issued March 15, 2013, the Federal Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Lighting Ballast Control, LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp., to consider the following questions: 1. ...more
On Friday, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered en banc review to address long-standing questions regarding the standard of review for claim construction in patent cases. In Lighting Ballast Control LLC v....more
Decisions from the first inter partes review proceedings are beginning to flow from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board. Jon E. Wright, director at intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. has...more
In This Issue: *News From The Bench: - Claim Construction: “Only One” Or “More Than One.” - No Need To Include Claim Construction in Design Patent Infringement Complaint. - CAFC Finds That Adapting...more
1. Can I infringe a patent if I am not aware of it? Yes. Lack of knowledge of a patent or a lack of intent to infringe the patent is not a defense to an allegation of patent infringement. Patent infringement occurs when...more
[A] sua sponte dismissal of a complaint "is usually reserved for those cases in which the complaint is so confused, ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance, if any, is well disguised."...more
Those of you who dabble with chemical structures while prosecuting or litigating pharmaceutical patents may find Allergan v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., interesting. In this ANDA litigation brought by Allergan against Barr,...more
In This Issue: • Indexing Not Required for Online Prior Art Publication • Claim Indefinite for Not Disclosing Any Structure • Aluminum Not Inherently Disclosed - Excerpt from Claim Indexing Not Required...more
In This Issue: Patents - ..Federal Circuit Rules It’s Own Standards Apply When Considering Preliminary Injunctions ..Preliminary Testing of Medical Devices in Animals Enables Their Use in...more
JD Supra gets your content noticed, increases your visibility and makes your marketing efforts hassle free...
Learn More or Schedule a demo
