Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Recognicorp, owner of U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303, sued Nintendo for infringement in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. After a transfer to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and...more

Thales Visionix Inc. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Federal Circuit Finds Motion Tracking System to be Patent-Eligible - After the dark days of 2014 and 2015, in which exactly one Federal Circuit decision out of over twenty 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenges was found to meet the...more

Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Apple filed a successful petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of Personal Web Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,802,310. In its final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed with Apple's contention...more

Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2016); O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2017)

The Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l decision requires the application of a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter. One must first determine...more

Verint Systems Inc. v. Red Box Recorders Ltd. (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Plaintiff Verint asserted six patents against Red Box (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,854, 5,790,798, 6,510,220, RE43,324, RE43,386, and 8,189,763) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Red Box rebutted,...more

Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Amdocs sued Openet in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,631,065, 7,412,510, 6,947,984, and 6,836,797. Openet moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that all four...more

Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Synopsys brought a patent infringement action against Mentor Graphics in the Northern District of California, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,530,841, 5,680,318, 5,748,488, and 6,836,420. Claim...more

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp. -- Judge Mayer on the First Amendment

Decided September 30th, this Federal Circuit case is already making waves. The majority opinion seems to be at tension with the Court's outcome in BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, but the real...more

September Was a Good Month for Patent Eligibility in the District Courts

Anecdotally, there seems to be a loosening up regarding the application of § 101 by the District Courts. The 2014 Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l has been referred to as sounding a death knell for...more

Iron Gate Security, Inc. v. Lowe's Companies, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2016)

Iron Gate, holder of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,693, sued Lowe's in the Southern District of New York, alleging infringement. Lowe's moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that the claims of the patent failed to meet...more

McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Patentee McRO sued a number of video game developers and publishers in the Central District of California and the District of Delaware for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,307,576 and 6,611,278. Several of the...more

Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016)

Core Wireless Licensing brought an action against LG Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas. Core contended that LG infringed claim 21 of its U.S. Patent No. 7,804,850. LG moved for summary judgment on the grounds...more

Of Technical Tools and Problems: Going Beyond the Two-Prong Alice Test

It is abundantly clear that the Supreme Court's 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision has significantly changed the patent-eligibility landscape for business methods and some types of software inventions. For instance, in...more

In re Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

McClinton Energy Group filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413, owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. The USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted...more

Peschke Map Technologies LLC v. Rouse Properties Inc. (E.D. Va. 2016)

Plaintiff Peschke Map Technologies ("Peschke") sued Rouse Properties ("Rouse") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,397,143, directed to a computer-based map navigation and display system. Rouse filed a 12(b)(6) motion to...more

Advanced Marketing Systems, LLC v. CVS Pharmacy (E.D. Tex. 2016)

In February 2015, Advanced Marketing Systems (AMS) sued a number of defendants, alleging infringement of various claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,219,445, 8,370,199, and 8,538,805. The defendants filed a motion for judgment on...more

Voxaton LLC v. Alpine Electronics of America, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2016)

Voxathon sued Alpine, and a number of defendants that manufacture automobiles, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,261.  According to the Court, the patent "relates to computer-implemented systems and methods for...more

Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Many patent attorneys have a visceral, disapproving reaction to negative claim limitations -- elements that specify what a claim does not cover. While a line of Federal Circuit cases has established that negative limitations...more

MacroPoint, LLC v. FourKites, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 2015)

In a previous article on the USPTO's publication of its 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, we wrote: Despite the Interim Guidance offering a reasonably fair and thorough overview of the current...more

Comments on the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance -- BSA

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). In the July Update, the Office provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those...more

Comments on the USPTO's Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance -- The ABA

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("July Update"). The update provided recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the Office's...more

PTAB Finds Two Sets of Claims to Be Not Abstract

USPTO SealAs the fallout from the Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case makes its way through the federal courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), applicants and patentees continue to struggle...more

July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility

On July 30, 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated its subject matter eligibility guidance ("Eligibility Update"). This update provides recommendations and resources for examiners in addition to those in the...more

Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)

On September 23, 2010, Eon filed suit against seventeen defendants in the District Court of the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,663,757. During the case, the '757 patent went through two...more

131 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide