Patents

News & Analysis as of

Federal Court Rules Business Method Patent Invalid Post-Alice

On September 2, 2014, the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled in the case of Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. that the plaintiff's business method patents concerning...more

USPTO to Hold Roundtable on Patent Law Harmonization

In a notice published in the Federal Register last week (79 Fed. Reg. 56070), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office announced that it would be holding a roundtable to obtain public input on several issues related to the...more

What’s Happening with Patents at the USPTO? Chief of Staff Byrnes has Answers!

On September 16, 2014, United States Patent and Trademark Office Chief of Staff Andrew Byrnes presented to the Boston Patent Law Association an update on new quality initiatives and the implementation of White House patent...more

Court Report - September 2014 #5

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Reckitt Benckiser LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al. 1:14-cv-01203; filed September 17, 2014 in the District Court of...more

Post-Alice Federal Circuit Finds Software-Related Patent Not Patent Eligible; Tips on Business Method Patents in New Landscape

In its first precedential decision regarding a business-related invention since the Supreme Court's 2014 Alice v. CLS Bank decision, the Federal Circuit held claims invalid for lack of patent eligibility under Section 101 of...more

IP Newsflash - September 2014 #3

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Decide Non-Patent Causes of Action That Involves a Substantial, Non-Hypothetical Disputed Patent Law Issue - On September 16, 2014, a Federal Circuit...more

Provisional Application Not § 102(e) Prior Art in IPR

The PTAB taught a Petitioner a valuable lesson regarding the scope of 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) in Sequenom Inc. v. Stanford Univ., IPR2014-00337, finding that a provisional patent application cannot be used as prior art in an inter...more

Oh, Behave!

In Finjan, Inc. v. FireEye, Inc., IPR2-14-00344, Paper 27, IPR2014-00492, Paper 18, (September 18, 2014), the Board admonished the parties for their conduct of the proceeding: We also take this opportunity to observe...more

Invalidity under § 101 and defensive collateral estoppel defeat second DietGoal case

CaDietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time, Inc. Case Number: 1:13-cv-08381 - Last month, in DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Bravo Media LLC, Case No. 1:13–cv-08391–PAE, we reported on Judge Engelmayer’s invalidation of...more

Losing The Home-Team Advantage – The Supreme Court’s Narrowing of the Doctrine of General Personal Jurisdiction and its Impact on...

A recent Supreme Court opinion in a non-patent case, Daimler AG v. Bauman, likely will have a far-reaching impact on the prevalence of patent declaratory judgment actions. In the past, an accused patent infringer often could...more

Are the Supreme Court’s exceptions to patentability mandated by the Constitution, or are they just “statutory stare decisis”?

There has been significant commentary, both before and after the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, that the various judicially created exceptions to patentability under 35 USC § 101 are not only sound, but are also...more

PTAB Update -- A Review of the First Round of Comments (Part 1)

The USPTO has been seeking feedback on the PTAB trial proceedings established by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. A Federal Register Notice from June 27, 2014 contained the "Request for Comments on Trial Proceedings...more

Early Lessons on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Section 101 From Recent Court Decisions

Alice and its immediate aftermath in the lower courts – In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the US Supreme Court held that claims to “generic computer implementation” of abstract ideas are...more

Institution Decisions and Dispositions for September 19, 2014

Institution Decisions - In Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC v. American Vehicular Sciences LLC, IPR2014-00644, Paper 12 (September 19, 2014) the Board instituted inter partes review of claims 1–3, 11–20, 23, 27, 50, 51, 54, 60,...more

Stay pending interlocutory appeal of denial of stay for ungranted CBM petitions denied

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co. et al. Case Number: 1:13-cv-03777 - Summary: JP Morgan Chase (“JPMC”), having lost a motion to stay this case pending resolution of IPRs and CBMs [LINK TO 19...more

Full Federal Court confirms isolated nucleic acids are patentable in Australia

• The Full Federal Court has unanimously confirmed that isolated nucleic acids, either DNA or RNA, are patentable in Australia. • The decision is in contrast to the recent decision of the US Supreme Court, which held a...more

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

In an IPR Proceeding With Several Listed Petitioners, The Petitioners Must Speak With A Single Voice

In IPR2014-00954, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") (A.P.J.s Petravick, Deshpande, and Clements) issued a decision regarding the proper identification of lead and backup counsel listed in the powers of attorneys in...more

UGG: Default Judgment and Treble Damages Entered Against Defendant Where Defendant Failed to Participate in Discovery

Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation ("Plaintiff") alleged that Defendants Superstar International, Inc. and Sai Liu ("Defendants") produce, advertise, and sell products that infringe Plaintiff's design patents for UGG...more

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung's Invalidity Challenge to Apple's Patents Denied Where Legal Theory Was Not Disclosed until after Trial

After the jury trial between Apple and Samsung, and shortly before the July 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested leave to file supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of two of Apple's...more

Sanctions Awarded for "Train Wreck of a Deposition" Where Witness Was Evasive and Counsel Made Inappropriate Objections

In this patent infringement action between MAG Aerospace Industries, Inc. ("MAG") and B/E Aerospace, Inc. ("B/E"), MAG filed an ex parte motion as a result of conduct during a deposition. The court began its analysis of the...more

Prior Denial of IPR Petitions Dooms Litigation Stay Based On "Second Round" of Petitions Under the Totality of the Circumstances...

In CTP Innovations, LLC v. Solo Printing, Case No. 1:14-cv-21499-UU, the Court denied, without prejudice, Defendant's motion to stay the litigation pending the inter partes review of the two patents-in-suit....more

Update on Mayo Myriad Patent Eligibility From USPTO BCP Partnership Meeting

On September 17, 2015, the USPTO held the first “bicoastal” Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical Customer Partnership meeting, with live participation from the USPTO’s main campus in Alexandria, VA and from San Jose...more

Dispositions for September 18. 2014

Dispositions - In SAP America, Inc. v. Arunachalam, IPR2013-00194, Paper 60 (September 18, 2014), the Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1–6, 10–12, 14–17, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,148 (all...more

District Court Grants Motion to Reconsider Summary Judgment Motion after Supreme Court's Decision in Limelight v. Akamai

In this patent infringement action, FedEx moved for reconsideration after the district court had denied its motion for summary judgment regarding the plaintiff's claim for inducing patent infringement. FedEx moved for...more

3,034 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 122