Skip to main content

Patent Litigation

Viewpoints

Filter by:

A recent decision in the Western District of Kentucky highlights the importance of explaining in a complaint under the Defend Trade Secrets Act why the allegedly misappropriated information qualifies for trade secret protection.

Federal Circuit Reminds PTAB to Explain its Reasoning

March 1, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims.

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Covered Business Method Review

February 27, 2017 | Blog | By William Meunier, Tiffany Knapp

The Federal Circuit has further clarified the scope of the covered business method (CBM) review program under the America Invents Act (AIA), explaining in Secure Axcess, LLC. v. PNC Bank National Association that in order for patent to be a CBM patent, it is not enough that the claimed subject matter may be used in a financial activity.

Software is Still Patent Eligible

February 16, 2017 | Advisory | By Michael Van Loy, Michael Renaud, Sandra Badin, Matthew Karambelas, Nicholas Mouton

In recent years, software patents have come under fire from legislation (the American Invents Act) that has generally made patents easier to invalidate, and from court decisions (the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank1 and its progeny) that have made computer-implemented inventions more vulnerable to subject matter eligibility challenges.

New Rules in the Northern District of California Aim to Encourage Patent Case Settlements

February 8, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Newman, Marguerite McConihe, Chris Duerden

New rules for patent cases in the Northern District of California will significantly affect litigation and settlement of cases in Silicon Valley’s backyard. Lawyers litigating cases in the district after the January 17, 2017 change should be wary of the new requirements that set the Northern District of California apart.
On January 17, 2017, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suit against Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for allegedly monopolizing the market for CDMA and LTE baseband processor technologies.

Losing IPR Petitioners May Lack Standing To Appeal

January 17, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, William Meunier

When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit recently answered “no.”

Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Broad Personal Jurisdiction Over ANDA Filers

January 12, 2017 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Joe Rutkowski

On Monday, January 9, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied, without comment, Mylan Pharmaceuticals’ petition for certiorari to reverse an opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a broad scope of personal jurisdiction over generic ANDA filers in patent infringement suits under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

January 12, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least different.

Year in Review: The Most Popular Blog Posts of 2016

January 9, 2017 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

As 2017 begins and IP strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2016. According to the many readers of Global IP Matters, hot topics included navigating the waters of patent prosecution, subject matter eligibility under § 101, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR

January 6, 2017 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Anthony Faillaci, Kristina Cary

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that discussed caller ID technology that would verbally announce the name of an incoming caller before the call is connected.
The Federal Circuit reversed the invalidation of two patents directed to providing security for credit card purchases in an opinion released earlier today.  The patents at issue, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,840,486 and 8,036,988, disclose methods for effecting secure credit-card purchases by minimizing merchant access to credit card numbers.

Supreme Court to Hear Patent Venue Case

December 15, 2016 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Brad M Scheller

The plot just thickened in the long-running debate over where patent cases should be litigated.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that product.

With the U.K.’s Announcement, the European Unified Patent Court Moves Toward Realization

December 7, 2016 | Advisory | By Michael Renaud, James Wodarski, Michael McNamara, Robert Moore

On November 28, 2016, Baroness Neville Rolfe, the United Kingdom Minister of State for Intellectual Property, announced that the U.K. would ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA), paving the way for the European Unified Patent Court (UPC).
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.
The America Invents Act (“AIA”) mandates that a Covered Business Method Review is available only for challenging the validity of covered business method patents.

Federal Circuit Corrects the Board’s “Too Exacting” Diligence Standard

November 21, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Vincent Ferraro

On November 15, 2016, a split panel of the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Moore and O’Malley, ruled that the antedating standard demanded by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, requiring a “continuous exercise of reasonable diligence,” was too exacting and in conflict with Federal Circuit precedent.

Intellectual Ventures Petitions Federal Circuit for Full Court Review

November 18, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Sandra Badin, Matthew Karambelas

Earlier this week, Intellectual Ventures (IV) petitioned the full Federal Circuit to review the panel opinion in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, which invalidated two of its patents under section 101.  Both patents—the ’050 and the ’610—are directed to filtering email or file content.
The Federal Circuit has ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board cannot deny Patent Owner an opportunity to address portions of a prior art reference first discussed in Petitioner’s Reply, and then rely on those same portions to hold the claims unpatentable.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: