What Does the Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Mean to a Software Entrepreneur?
Derivation Proceedings: What You Need to Know
What is Graphene? Fenwick Patent Attorney Has the Answer
Examining Trends in Worldwide Design IP Filings
Track One and the Patent Prosecution Highway
The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
Lessons from Nautilus v. Biosig at the Supreme Court
The Art of Communicating to a Jury
The Evolution of Patent Damages
The Changing Landscape of Intellectual Property in China
How does the IPR Process Work?
Interpartes Review: Is it Right for You?
Taking Notice of Notice Letters
Protecting and Enforcing Your High Technology Intellectual Property - Webinar Replay
Patent Infringement Defense Leveraging Contested Proceedings
Design Patents: New Implications from the Hague Agreement
Patent Litigation and the Proposed Innovation Act of 2013
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
Demonstratives in Post-Grant Proceedings
Video: Claim Contruction in Post-Grant Proceedings
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 -
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
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
• 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Back to Top