Patents Supreme Court of the United States

News & Analysis as of

Will the Supreme Court Put the Brakes on the IPR Trend? Cuozzo Speed Tech., LLC v. Lee

Not so fast: the United States Supreme Court is set to review the America Invents Act’s (“AIA”) fast-track inter partes review (“IPR”) process. On January 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Cuozzo Speed...more

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee

The Supreme Court on Friday granted certiorari to review the Federal Circuit's decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark's Patent Trial and Appeal Board was entitled to perform claim construction in inter partes review...more

Regular audits of technology license agreements may reduce your patent royalty payments

Patent license royalty payments can be habit-forming. Some patent licenses have terms extending for potentially two decades or longer. As a result, patent licenses are frequently filed away never to be seen again....more

Top Stories of 2015: #6 to #10

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more

eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)

As 2015 drew to a close, the toll of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision on software and business method patents became apparent. Post Alice, approximately 70% of all patents challenged under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been...more

Top Stories of 2015: #11 to #15

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its ninth annual list of top patent stories. For 2015, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more

Top Patent Law Stories In 2015

I will try to keep this post as brief as possible, since I posted at length on all of the stories. There was a lot of IP action in 2015 – much involving the Fed. Cir. and Supreme Court’s resolution of cases in progress in...more

Belief in Invalidity Does Not Prevent Liability for Inducement, Lack of Infringement Does

In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., [2012-1042] (December 28, 2015), the Federal Circuit considered the case after the Supreme Court held that belief that the patent is invalid does not negate intent to induce...more

Patent Claim Preambles Post-Alice

What is in the preamble of a patent claim? And, can the contents of the preamble influence the claim examination process? Ever since the US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et...more

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

"Software" Claims Reciting No Structural Components and Having Questionable Novelty Struck Down under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Two recent District Court decisions show examples of "weak" claims, which in the past would likely be found invalid as lacking novelty or being obvious, but today are struck down as being unpatentable under § 101. The cases...more

IP Matters, Fall 2015

Textile Copyright Cases Ripe for ADR - While normally focused on music and media matters, copyright lawyers in California have grown busy with something else: fabrics. Hundreds of textile copyright suits involving fabric...more

Why Business Methods Are Difficult to Patent

Although the general rule (based on 35 USC section 101) is that anything made by humans is patentable, there are exceptions. Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Inventions that fall in...more

MacroPoint, LLC v. FourKites, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2015)

In a previous article on the USPTO's publication of its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, we wrote: Despite the Interim Guidance offering a reasonably fair and thorough overview of the current...more

Comments on the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance -- BSA

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). In the July Update, the Office provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those...more

Supreme Court to Review Federal Circuit Standard for Treble Damage Awards Under § 284 - Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse...

Taking its first IP cases of the current session, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in two § 284 enhanced fee award patent cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., S.Ct. No. 14-1513 (Oct. 19, 2015) and...more

Comments on the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance -- The ABA

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). The update provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's...more

Is a New Standard for Enhanced Damages in Patent Infringement on the Horizon?

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently announced that they will be reviewing the standard for willful patent infringement in two cases currently on appeal from the Federal Circuit: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse...more

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether to Relax the Standard for Award of Enhanced Patent Damages

The U.S. Supreme Court announced last week that it will decide two cases concerning the issue of when district courts may award enhanced damages to patentees upon a finding of infringement. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, U.S., No....more

ANDA Update - October 2015

Federal Circuit Interprets Statutory Requirements for Biosimilar Regulatory Pathway - Amgen Inc., v. Sandoz Inc., (Fed. Cir. July 21, 2015): In a case of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal...more

“Raging Bull” and the Patent Act: Laches Still Available in Patent Cases - SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit convened an en banc panel to examine the Supreme Court’s “Raging Bull” decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. in the context of deciding whether laches remains a...more

PTAB Issues Questionable 101 Decision

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has likely seen an increase in the number of appealed rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v....more

Natera Responds to Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Last week, Appellee Natera, Inc. filed its response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC in August (see "Sequenom Requests Rehearing En...more

Ariosa Diagnostics Responds to Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc

On Monday, Appellee Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. filed its response to the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellants Sequenom, Inc. and Sequenom Center for Molecular Medicine, LLC in August. In its response, Ariosa...more

Australian Patent Office Proposes “Coding Only” Sequence Ban

Coming soon after the High Court’s “Myriad decision” in Australia, the Australian Patent Office has proposed guidelines that would effectively limit the ban on patent-eligibility of DNA sequences to nucleic acids that code...more

865 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 35

"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.
×