In Qualcomm Incorporated v. Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit held that applicant admitted prior art (AAPA) may not be the basis of an invalidity ground in an inter partes review (IPR), and therefore, an IPR petition cannot...more
In CosmoKey Solutions GMBH & Co. KG v. Duo Security LLC, the Federal Circuit held that an improved method for overcoming computer hacking by turning on and off the authentication process was patent eligible. The court held...more
5/3/2022
/ Abstract Ideas ,
Authentication ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Data Protection ,
Hackers ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Section 101
In In re SurgiSil, LLP, the Federal Circuit held that a claimed design is limited to the particular article of manufacture identified in the claim. In this case, the court held that a design of an earlier tool did not...more
In BladeRoom Grp. Ltd. v. Emerson Elec. Co., the Ninth Circuit held under English law that a reasonable person would interpret a nondisclosure agreement (NDA) to end two years after signing because the NDA unambiguously...more
In Lubby Holdings LLC v. Chung, the Federal Circuit held corporate officers and employees who actively assist with their corporation’s infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement even without any piercing...more
3/1/2022
/ § 287 ,
Appeals ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Damages ,
Direct Infringement ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Judgment As A Matter Of Law ,
Notice Requirements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Liability ,
Piercing the Corporate Veil ,
Regulatory Requirements
In Ingevity Corporation v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit held that a prior invention will not anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) unless the prior inventors appreciated the invention. Specifically, an...more
2/9/2022
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Auto Parts ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Inventions ,
Obviousness ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 337
In Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc., the Supreme Court held, in a 5–4 opinion, that the doctrine of assignor estoppel continues to apply, but only for an assignor’s invalidity assertion that contradicts explicit or...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) issued a notice titled “Properly Presenting Prophetic and Working Examples in a Patent Application,” reminding patent applicants of their obligation to ensure that patent...more
In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed. However, the Court resolved the problem by making PTAB...more
12/7/2021
/ Administrative Patent Judges ,
Appointments Clause ,
Arthrex Inc v Smith & Nephew Inc ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Executive Branch ,
Executive Powers ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Principle Officers ,
SCOTUS ,
United States v Arthrex Inc ,
USPTO
In Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia held an agreement enforceable where if, in the course of employment, the employee incorporated a prior invention into the employer’s product,...more
11/23/2021
/ Breach of Contract ,
Contract Terms ,
Employment Contract ,
Enforceability ,
Intellectual Property Litigation ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Ownership Interest ,
Proprietary Information ,
Software ,
Transfer of Interest
In Wastow Enterprises, LLC v. TruckMovers.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit held the patent claims were limited to a universal folding boom trailer because the specification, including the title, referred to the “present...more
In Wastow Enterprises, LLC v. TruckMovers.com, Inc., the Federal Circuit held the patent claims were limited to a universal folding boom trailer because the specification, including the title, referred to the “present...more
In Wastow Enterprises, LLC v. TruckMovers.com, Inc. the Federal Circuit held the patent claims were limited to a universal folding boom trailer because the specification, including the title, referred to the “present...more
In Raytheon Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) incorrectly invalidated a Raytheon turbine engine patent as obvious based on a...more
The Patent Office has amended the rules regarding representation under 37 CFR part 11, effective June 25, 2021. The rules more closely align the Patent Office Rules of Professional Conduct with the American Bar Association...more
In Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Federal Circuit held that the use of broad functional claim language raises the bar for enablement. Specifically, the court held that defining an antibody based on binding to a certain protein...more
In Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the claimed language “user identification module” was a means-plus-function element with no corresponding structure disclosed in the...more
In Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., the Supreme Court, in a 6–2 decision2 written by Justice Breyer, held that Google’s copying of Oracle’s Java application programming interface (API) naming convention was a fair use as a...more
In Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Promptu Systems Corp., the Federal Circuit held that the plain meaning of the claim phrase “command function” was limited to functions that command an action to be taken. The meaning of...more
In Horizon Pharma, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc.,1 the Federal Circuit held that the claim language “the AM and PM unit dose forms further target a mean % time” as indefinite because the phrase was incomprehensible....more
In Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,1 the Federal Circuit held the claim term “main power source” was interpreted to include both AC and DC power sources, especially where specification never described that...more
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (Patent Office) has issued final rules in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and the transitional program for covered business method patents (CBM) proceedings...more
C. R. Bard Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively, Bard), and AngioDynamics, Inc., manufactured vascular access ports that were inserted under a patient’s skin to enable medical providers to insert fluid into...more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) designated as precedential two decisions involving situations where the Board determined whether to institute review, using its discretion and based on whether review would be an...more
In In re: Google Technology Holdings LLC, the Federal Circuit held that Google forfeited its claim construction arguments made on appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board). The court explained that whether these...more