On April 18, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion that is making stakeholders in the patent licensing community sit up and take note. The case was Dodocase VR, Inc. v. MerchSource, LLC, holding that a...more
Yesterday Democrat and Republican legislators from both the Senate and the House of Representatives released a one page outline of a proposal to change the law of patent eligibility. The legislators supporting this proposal...more
4/23/2019
/ Abstract Ideas ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Proposed Regulation ,
Section 101 ,
Senate Judiciary Committee ,
USPTO
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated a decision granting a request for additional discovery as an informative opinion. Informative opinions are not binding; they rather provide guidance on rules and...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board added a decision declining to apply estoppel under 35 USC 325(e)(1) to dismiss a follow-on CBM proceeding in Westlake Services LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176 to the...more
The AIA sets a one-year deadline to file a petition for IPR of a patent from the date a complaint for patent infringement is served. 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). There is an exception: the bar does not apply when joining a second...more
In July 2013, Cardiocom filed a petition for IPR of a patent. Petitioner Medtronic then acquired Cardiocom. In January 2014, the Board decided to move forward on eight claims and declared trial on two obviousness grounds,...more
Petitioner Unilever filed an earlier petition for IPR of 33 claims of a patent. In the Decision on Institution, the Board denied review of 11 claims and granted review of the rest. Unilever then filed a second petition for...more
Petitioner Metronic had previously filed two other petitions for IPR of a patent. The Board instituted trial on one of the petitions and denied the other. Medtronic then filed a third petition for IPR of the patent that...more
Petitioner Unified filed a petition for IPR of 11 claims of a patent. Unified acknowledged that the patent was already subject to three other petitions for IPR and that the Board had instituted trial on two of those three...more
In this inter partes review proceeding, the challenged patent, filed in July 2011, purported to be a continuation of a parent application filed in September 2009. Petitioner PRISM argued the challenged claims lacked written...more
In the recent cases OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. and HIGHMARK INC. v. ALLCARE HEALTH MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., the U.S. Supreme Court empowered district court judges to award attorney fees to prevailing...more
6/13/2014
/ Akamai Technologies ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Exceptional Case ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Highmark v. Allcare ,
Induced Infringement ,
Limelight ,
Limelight Networks ,
Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
USPTO
In light of these decisions, patentees with weak cases may think twice about filing, now that they face a credible risk of having to pay defendants’ attorney fees. By the same token, accused infringers with questionable...more