Skip to main content

Patent Litigation

Viewpoints

Filter by:

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.
On July 5, the Federal Circuit issued another important decision regarding the meaning of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

Supreme Court Decides Two Key Aspects of IPR in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee

June 30, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Gurneet Singh, Catherine Xu

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is final and non-appealable, thereby not being subject to judicial review, and (2) it is appropriate for the Board to construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, rather than their plain and ordinary meaning as in district court litigation.
The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a decision that will make many patent owners and IP practitioners breathe easier.  In Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. the Court reversed a district court holding that a continuation application filed on the same day that its parent application issued is not entitled to the parent priority date.
“You sued them. They stay, period.” This is the conclusion a Texas trial court came to when asked to exclude the designated representative of a party from a hearing where an employee of the other party, a direct competitor, would disclose his employer’s trade secrets.
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding several Merck patents invalid as obvious.
Sign up to receive email updates from Mintz.
Subscribe Now

Explore Other Viewpoints: