Supplemental Examination: A Tool Worth Further Consideration - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
Six Things You Should Know About Inter Partes Review
JONES DAY TALKS®: PTAB Litigation Blog Reaches 500 Posts ... and the PTAB Reacts to COVID-19
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
In recent years, Congress has considered potential new laws for patent reform, typically changes to the system supported by patent owners. Two main areas of focus are “Section 101” and the “PTAB.” ...more
Cosmokey v. Duo Security is more about the Federal Circuit than the patented authentication method accused of being a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The court’s analysis is remarkable for at least two reasons. It skipped...more
Reasonably Continuous Diligence Is Not Negated If an Inventor Works On Improvements or Evaluates Alternatives to the Claimed Invention - In ATI Technologies ULC v. IANCU, Appeal Nos. 2016-2222, -2406, -2608, the Federal...more
A Post-URAA Patent that Issues After but Expires Before a Related Pre-URAA Patent Is Not a Double-Patenting Reference Against the Pre-URAA Patent - In Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc.,...more
Improperly Drafted Employment Agreement Leads to Dismissal of Patent Case Due to Lack of Standing - In Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation et al., Appeal Nos. 2016-2309, 2016-2310, 2016-2311, the Federal...more
On January 10, 2018, the Federal Circuit added Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., No. 2016-2520 (Fed. Cir.), to its Enfish jurisprudence and upheld the subject matter eligibility of a software patent directed to...more
The Circuit affirms the decision in Secured Mail v. Universal to dismiss an infringement case under Rule 12(b)(6), holding that all of the asserted claims of the seven patents are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter....more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
The technical nature of a claimed improvement is central to the evaluation of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Two recent district court opinions illustrate that whether or not the claims describe an improvement in the...more
Patentee McRO sued a number of video game developers and publishers in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 and 6,611,278. Several of the...more
Core Wireless Licensing brought an action against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Core contended that LG infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850. LG moved for summary judgment on the grounds...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, gives patent owners another illustration of patent subject matter eligibility under section 101....more
Addressing for the first time the issue of patent validity in the context of an America Invents Act post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) invalidated two livestock patents as unpatentable under...more
In a Section 101 analysis under Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl., “[a]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces”—even if individual claim...more
"Quick Look Test" Used by District Court to Support Lack of Preemption and Find Software Claims Patent Eligible - On April 15, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an Order Denying...more