Skip to main content

Patent Litigation

Viewpoints

Filter by:

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.

Why No One is Talking About Derivation Proceedings

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.

Patent-Agent Privilege and the USPTO’s Proposed New Rule

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.
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.”
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.

Analyzing Patent Claims Having Conditional Language – the PTAB Provides Clarity

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.
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).
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.

CAFC's Husky Decision Makes Sledding Tougher for Patent Owners in PTAB Appeals

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”).

“Processing System” Does Not Render Claims Indefinite

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.

Federal Circuit Revisits Willfulness Post Halo

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.

In McRO, Federal Circuit Provides Further Guidance on Section 101

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.

Apotex to Supreme Court: Review BPCIA 180-Day Notice Requirement

September 21, 2016 | Blog | By Thomas Wintner

On September 9, 2016, Apotex Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Case No. 2016-1308.

Markman at the ITC and Its Effect on an Investigation

September 20, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Michael Newman

Several months ago, we were struck with the question of whether, as counsel for a patent owner at the ITC, our clients’ case would benefit from a Markman hearing. Claim construction during an ITC investigation was routinely performed as part of the evidentiary hearing in an investigation, rather than as part of earlier Markman proceedings.
Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 2015-1649 through 2015-1563 (Fed. Cir., Sep. 9, 2016) (nonprecedential) (per curiam).
The deadline has come and gone for the ITC and patentee Align to file petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of the Federal Circuit’s decision in ClearCorrect. On November 10, 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that the ITC does not have jurisdiction to bar digital downloads or imports where there was no physical article to bar from importation.

A Novel Outcome at the International Trade Commission: Patent Claims Invalidated Under Alice in the 100-Day Pilot Program

August 26, 2016 | Advisory | By James Wodarski, Andrew DeVoogd, Daniel Weinger, Matthew Karambelas

On August 22, 2016, Administrative Law Judge David Shaw of the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) issued his final initial determination (“the ID”) in Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-994.

Industrial Espionage and the Defend Trade Secrets Act

August 24, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Nick Armington

American corporations are facing an ever increasing threat of misappropriation of their valuable trade secrets through industrial espionage, defined as the theft of a company’s trade secrets by an actor intending to convert the trade secret to the economic benefit of a competitor.

What Type of Sale Constitutes an On-Sale Bar?

July 13, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Monique Winters Macek

An invention cannot be patented if it was ready for patenting and was subject to a commercial offer for sale more than one year before the application was filed.
Arming software-patentees with additional precedent in favor of eligibility for software patents post-Alice, the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2016 handed down its decision in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., No. 2015-1763, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016), vacating the lower court’s decision.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: