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.
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).
Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in Design Patent Case with Samsung, Remands to Federal Circuit to Formulate Test for Identifying Relevant “Article of Manufacture”
December 7, 2016 | Alert | By James Wodarski, Patrick Driscoll, Matthew Karambelas
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.
December 2, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Serge Subach
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.
November 23, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier
The America Invents Act (“AIA”) mandates that a Covered Business Method Review is available only for challenging the validity of covered business method patents.
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.
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.
Failure to Let Patent Owner Address Unpatentability Arguments Relied on by the Board Violates Administrative Procedures
November 15, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Vincent Ferraro
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.
November 8, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy
On November 2, 2016 the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memo to Examiners on its stance on subject matter eligibility in response to the McRO and BASCOM Federal Circuit decisions, previously discussed at Global IP Matters.
November 2, 2016 | Blog | By Kevin Amendt
Someone stole your invention and filed for a patent on it? Derivation proceedings in the Patent Office may be an answer. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) amended 35 U.S.C. § 135 to replace interference proceedings with a new process called derivation proceedings.
November 1, 2016 | Blog | By Matthew Hurley, Matthew Galica, Anthony Faillaci
Several recent court decisions have shed light on the patent agent privilege, and now the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking to weigh-in on the issue.
ITC Institutes “Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers” Investigation – Only the Fourth 100-Day Pilot Program Ordered
October 31, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Daniel Weinger
On October 19, 2016, the ITC instituted Investigation No. 1025, based on a complaint filed on May 26, 2016, by Silicon Genesis Corporation (SiGen), against Soitec, S.A. (Soitec). As part of the institution, the ITC ordered that the ALJ issue an early initial determination regarding whether SiGen “has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.”
October 28, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed last week that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision to discontinue inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is not reviewable on appeal.
October 21, 2016 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Monique Winters Macek
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently designated Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), as precedential. In this decision the Board clarified how to interpret method and system claims that include conditional language.
Pleading Standard Defined– CAFC Holds that Joint Infringement Complaint Requires Identification of All Required Claim Steps
October 12, 2016 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo
Plaintiffs bringing patent infringement complaints under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard should take notice. On September 30, 2016, a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of a deficient complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).
Think Before You Settle: Protegrity Teaches Timing is Important When Negotiating Settlement Agreements
October 4, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Matthew Galica
As a patent owner involved in patent litigation, you must consider numerous factors when negotiating a settlement agreement. An important contemplation is timing, because finalizing a settlement agreement at the wrong juncture of your legal proceedings can have devastating results.
September 30, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Patrick Driscoll
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”).
September 29, 2016 | Blog | By Michael McNamara, Michael Renaud
The Federal Circuit relied on Nautilus to preserve functional language of a method claim in a decision published last Friday. In Cox Comm, Inc. v. Sprint, No. 2016-1013, the Federal Circuit held that the term “processing system” did not render the asserted claims indefinite.
September 29, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Adam Rizk
On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Federal Circuit recently issued a revised decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2013-1668 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The decision provides insight into the court’s interpretation of the Halo standard and enhanced damages.
September 22, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Michael Newman, Matthew Karambelas
Two years after the Central District of California invalidated two 3-D animation patents under Section 101, the Federal Circuit reversed that court’s decision, finding that the lower court oversimplified the claims of a computer-related invention.
Explore Other Viewpoints:
- Arbitration, Mediation & Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Bankruptcy & Restructuring
- Class Action
- Complex Commercial Litigation
- Consumer Product Safety
- Debt Financing
- EB-5 Financing
- Education & Nonprofits
- Employment, Labor & Benefits
- Energy & Sustainability
- Environmental Enforcement Defense
- Environmental Law
- FDA Regulatory
- Federal Circuit Appeals
- Financial Institution Litigation
- Government Law
- Health Care
- Health Care Compliance, Fraud and Abuse, & Regulatory Counseling
- Health Care Enforcement & Investigations
- Health Care Transactions
- Health Information Privacy & Security
- IP Due Diligence
- IPRs & Other Post Grant Proceedings
- Insolvency & Creditor Rights Litigation
- Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery
- Insurance & Financial Services
- Insurance Consulting & Risk Management
- Insurance and Reinsurance Problem-Solving & Dispute Resolution
- Intellectual Property
- Investment Funds
- Licensing & Technology Transactions
- Life Sciences
- Litigation & Investigations
- M&A Litigation
- ML Strategies
- Medicare, Medicaid and Commercial Coverage & Reimbursement
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Patent Litigation
- Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling
- Privacy & Cybersecurity
- Private Client
- Private Equity
- Products Liability & Complex Tort
- Project Development & Finance
- Public Finance
- Real Estate Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
- Real Estate, Construction & Infrastructure
- Retail & Consumer Products
- Securities & Capital Markets
- Securities Litigation
- Sports & Entertainment
- Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing
- Trade Secrets
- Trademark & Copyright
- Trademark Litigation
- Venture Capital & Emerging Companies
- White Collar Defense & Government Investigations