News & Analysis as of September 19, 2024

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter › Enhanced Damages

+ Follow

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter refers to the types of inventions that can be legally patented. The criteria for patentability varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for instance, if a... more +

Patent-Eligible Subject Matter refers to the types of inventions that can be legally patented. The criteria for patentability varies depending on the jurisdiction. In the United States, for instance, if a researcher discovers a naturally occurring substance, the substance itself cannot be patented. This issue was examined in a United States Supreme Court case, AMP v. Myriad, in regard to the patentability of human genes. less -

District of Delaware Goes against Prior Decisions and Declines to Dismiss Willful Infringement Claims Despite Failure to Allege...

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on 8/18/2020

On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent...more

How Defense Strategies Can Go Awry When Pursuing Concurrent PTAB Relief in Financial Services Patent Litigation

Farella Braun + Martel LLP on 11/22/2019

United States Automobile Association (USAA), a financial services company that provides insurance, banking, investment, and retirement products and services for members of the military and their families, filed a surprising...more

Latest Federal Court Cases - August 2019 #4

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 8/27/2019

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-1584 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2019) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit affirmed an inter partes review decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,...more

2017 and Early 2018 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 2/1/2018

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

2017 Supreme Court and Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit, With Some Significant Cases from 2016

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 10/23/2017

Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more

Fresh From the Bench: Precedential Patent Cases From the Federal Circuit

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 8/18/2017

Visual Memory v. Nvidia reverses the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that the claims recite an enhanced computer memory system and not an abstract idea under § 101. In Georgetown Rail v. Holland, the...more

Summaries of All Supreme Court and Precedential Federal Circuit Patent Cases Decided Since Jun. 1, 2016

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 6/1/2017

This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more

Recent Developments In Patent Law May 17, 2017

Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt PC on 5/30/2017

Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more

Top Stories of 2016: #11 to #15

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on 1/5/2017

After reflecting upon the events of the past twelve months, Patent Docs presents its tenth annual list of top patent stories. For 2016, we identified twenty stories that were covered on Patent Docs last year that we believe...more

Federal Circuit Review | October 2016

Knobbe Martens on 11/2/2016

Withdrawal of Claims During Prosecution Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel In UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 2015-1957, the Federal Circuit held that prosecution estoppel can apply even...more

Intellectual Property Law - October 2016

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on 10/26/2016

Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more

Federal Circuit Review | September 2016

Knobbe Martens on 10/6/2016

Claims Directed to Monitoring and Analyzing Data Held to Be Invalid under § 101 - In Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., Appeal No. 2015-1778, the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of summary...more

Patent Rights in the U.S.: Is the Pendulum Finally Swinging Back to Center?

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on 9/30/2016

The U.S. patent system has long struggled to strike a balance that both encourages patent rights and prevents patent abuse. Finding that balance requires giving patent owners the right amount of patent enforcement power,...more

Attorneys’ Fee Award Cannot Be Enhanced to Deter Misconduct (Lumen View Technology, LLC v. Findthebest.com, Inc.)

McDermott Will & Emery on 2/27/2016

Addressing whether deterrence can play a role in an attorneys’ fee award under § 285, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that once a case is deemed exceptional, § 285 only authorizes an award of reasonable...more

14 Results

/

View per page

Page: of 1