Patents

News & Analysis as of

U.S.-Centered Negotiations for Product Made and Sold Outside United States Do Not Constitute Sale or Offer for Sale in United...

Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc. and Pulse Elecs. Corp. - In a case exploring the limits of what constitutes a sale or offer for sale “within the United States” under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), the U.S. Court of...more

Court Report -- Part II: November 2014

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Glaxosmithkline LLC et al. 2:14-cv-06627; filed November 19, 2014 in the Eastern District of...more

Claim Differentiation Fails to Save Patentees from Their Own Words

Cardsoft, LLC v. Verifone, Inc.; World Class Technology Corp. v. Ormco Corp. - In each of two essentially contemporaneous decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected the patentee’s contentions...more

MBHB Snippets: Review of Developments in Intellectual Property Law: Fall 2014 - Vol. 12, Issue 4

In This Issue: - Prior Art Redefined Under the AIA - PTAB Holds a Firm Line on Additional Discovery - The Art of Prior Art Searching - Anticipating a Federal Trade Secret Law - Trademark...more

Corresponding Structure Required to Avoid Indefiniteness

Robert Bosch, LLC v. Snap-On, Inc. - In the context of addressing claim indefiniteness under § 112, ¶ 2, for lack of disclosure correspondence to a means plus function claim element (under § 112, ¶ 6) the U.S. Court of...more

A Brief Synopsis of the Issues Confronting the Federal Circuit in the En Banc Rehearing of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC

On February 5, 2015 the en banc Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in the matter of Suprema, Inc. v. ITC.1 This rehearing reviews the controversial Federal Circuit opinion holding that “an exclusion order based on a...more

Patent Co-Owners Are Necessary Parties to Infringement Suits, but Cannot Ordinarily Be Involuntarily Joined

STC.UNM v. Intel Corp. - In a divided opinion addressing whether a patent co-owner has a substantive right not to join in an infringement suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for...more

How the Kirtsaeng Decision Could Ruin the U.S. Branded Drug Industry

The Constitution gives Congress the power to grant copyright and patent protection in the same part of Article I, specifically in Section 8, Clause 8...more

Proposed Claims in IPR Motions to Amend Can Now Be Placed in Appendix

The PTAB recently sent out an email alert, directing practitioners to its order providing guidance on Motions to Amend in Corning Optical Comm. RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc., IPR2014-00441, Paper 19. The Order stemmed from...more

Judge Forrest: “Regeneron's position that each claim in its ‘018 Patent has a single limitation is, at the very least, odd. It is...

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Ablexis LLC - Case Number: 1:14-v-01651-KBF - Teaser: Judge Forrest: “Regeneron's position that each claim in its ‘018 Patent has a single limitation is, at the very least,...more

In Light of Alice the Federal Circuit Flips – Finding Ultramercial Business Method Software Lacks Patent Eligibility

On Thursday, November 14, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its latest decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC and WildTangent, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 21633 – a case that has been through a four-year appeal process and...more

Actual Negotiations Trump 40-Year Georgia-Pacific Test to Determine Type of Patent Licensing Royalties

The Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp. - Addressing a lower court’s reasonable royalty determination that chose not to rely on the Georgia Pacific factors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently...more

Recent Developments Relating to Antitrust and Intellectual Property: Patent Assertion Entities, FRAND and Patent Misuse

On Thursday November 6, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it had reached an agreement with MPHJ Technology Investments (MPHJ), a patent assertion entity, to settle the FTC’s Complaint that MPHJ allegedly made...more

Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings (D. Del. 2014)

Another district court (actually, a magistrate judge) has succumbed to the siren song, or drank the Kool-Aid, or (fill in your favorite Apocalyptic metaphor here) of applying the Supreme Court's Mayo v. Prometheus decision in...more

Seeds Worth More than Gold

Plant Breeders are Learning the Value of Protecting Their Inventions - Agricultural espionage: it’s not exactly the stuff of John le Carré novels. But recently a Chinese woman was charged in a plot to steal U.S. corn...more

Alice was a Game-Changer: Federal Circuit Changes Course on Advertising Patent

The third time is the charm in Ultramercial v. Hulu: After twice finding that an advertising method patent was directed to patent eligible subject matter, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s third Ultramercial...more

Draft IEEE Standard Not a Printed Publication in IPR

Whether the art presented in an inter partes review petition is a printed publication has arisen more frequently as Petitioners push the envelope to take advantage of the benefits of IPR proceedings. To that end, the PTAB was...more

Federal Circuit Review - November 2014

Japan Airlines Activities For US Government Cannot Infringe - In IRIS CORP. v. JAPAN AIRLINES CORP., Appeal No. 2010-1051, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to dismiss due to a conflict of laws. IRIS owns...more

Computer and Software Related Innovation – Is There A Rationale For Filing Software Patent Applications in Canada?

Intellectual property law provides a number of avenues to protect investments that innovators make in developing and marketing software. Securing one or more intellectual property rights is critical in acquiring and...more

Business Method Patents in Australia: Mere Computer Implementation Not Enough

On 10 November 2014, the Australian Full Federal Court (Court) held that a method of creating an index of securities using a standard computer was a 'scheme', and hence, not a patentable invention within section 18(1)(a) of...more

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

Claim terms construed, emphasizing construction is a mixed question of law and fact, and finding a preamble limiting and...

JobDiva, Inc. v. Monster Worldwide, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08229-KBF - On October 3, 2014, Judge Forrest construed terms of four JobDiva patents and one Monster patent. The JobDiva patents are...more

Indefiniteness: Are You Reasonably Certain?

The indefiniteness standard has, until recently, been very high—only an “insolubly ambiguous claim” was considered indefinite (see, e.g., Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. International Trade, 341 F. 3d 1332, 1338–9 (Fed. Cir....more

Court Report - November 2014 #3

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Sucampo AG et al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. et al. 3:14-cv-07114; filed November 12, 2014 in the District Court...more

Rehearing Round-up

Mitsubishi Plastics, Inc. v. Celgard, LLC, IPR2014-00524, Paper 27 (November 21, 2014) the Board denied inter partes review of claims 1-6 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 6,432,586....more

3,527 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 142