Recent guidance published in the Federal Register by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) explains some of what is required by patent examiners in making an obviousness case under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Since it is...more
On January 28, 2021, the Federal Circuit affirmed the general principle that the mere fact of copying by an accused infringer is insufficient to rebut a charge of obviousness (L’Oreal USA, Inc. v. Olaplex, Inc.; appeal from...more
The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court award of over $360,000 in costs and attorneys’ fees against a non-practicing entity, citing the need “to deter future abusive litigation.”
In October 2016, Blackbird sued...more
1/8/2020
/ Abusive Discovery Strategies ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Document Productions ,
Exceptional Case ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Section 285 ,
Subject Matter Jurisdiction ,
Voluntary Dismissals
On October 30, 2019, the Federal Circuit held that evidence of copying may be used to rebut an obviousness challenge, even if that evidence does not relate to the copying of a specific product. (Liqwd, Inc. v. L’Oreal USA,...more
On August 29, 2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) designated as precedential its January 31, 2019 decision in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Chrimar Systems, Inc. In Cisco, the PTAB held that 35 U.S.C. § 315(a)(1) bars...more
We previously reported here on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision involving a case in which a patent eligibility rejection was overcome by replacing a “comparing” step with a recitation that the sample is from a...more
Under the Mayo/Alice test for patent eligibility, answering the questions of whether any particular claim is “directed to” a “judicial exception” without “significantly more” remains in many ways a substantial and...more