Skip to main content

Intellectual Property

Viewpoints

Filter by:

IP for Start-ups: Part VI

July 19, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

In our sixth "IP for Start-Ups” video, “Getting the Correct Named Inventors on a Patent”, Mike discusses the importance of including all of the inventors on a patent and why it's important to name anyone who has a reasonable proximity to the invention.
Read more

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.
Read more

USPTO Fast-Tracks Cancer Immunotherapy Patent Applications

July 8, 2016 | Blog | By Terri Shieh-Newton

Effective June 29, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a pilot program to provide for earlier review of patent applications pertaining to cancer immunotherapy.
Read more
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.
Read more

IP For Start-Ups: Part V

July 5, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

In our fifth "IP for Start-Ups” video, “Copyrights versus Patents to Protect Software Innovations”, Mike discusses the pros and cons of using copyrights or patents to protect your software.
Read more
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).
Read more

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.
Read more
Patent applicants who have filed a priority application (such as a U.S. Provisional application) may wish to abandon and then refile that priority application to extend the time available for filing a utility application.
Read more
In some of the first decisions under the newly enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act, on June 10 and 22, 2016, United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No. 16-cv-03166-JST (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) that prevents a sales consultant from accessing, using or sharing confidential data that she allegedly stole from her former employer before leaving the company in violation of trade secret laws and employment agreements.
Read more

IP for Start-Ups: Part IV

June 28, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

In our fourth "IP for Start-Ups" video, "Are U.S. Patents Good Outside of the USA?", Mike discusses how geography plays into patent protection, both inside the U.S. and internationally.
Read more

Keep Calm and IP On: Planning for UK IP Post-Brexit

June 27, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, Brad M Scheller

This past Thursday the Brexit vote sent shockwaves around world, including the IP community and in particular with respect to IP rights in the UK and Europe. But concerns at the moment are speculative as nothing yet has changed.
Read more
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.
Read more

IP for Start-Ups: Part III

June 21, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

As our weekly "IP for Start-Ups" series continues, IP attorney Mike Van Loy discusses the nuances behind writing claims that are both broad enough to capture potential infringers and specific enough to show that the patent is not covered by prior art, in our third video, "The Importance of Getting the Claims Right in a Patent".
Read more

IP for Start-Ups: Part II

June 14, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

Check out the second video in our "IP for Start-Ups" series, "The Folly of the 'One Killer Patent' Strategy", below.  Mike talks about the strategic advantage of having a modest patent portfolio, rather than only a single patent.
Read more

IP for Start-Ups: Part I

June 7, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy

Protecting your ideas is important, especially as you get your business off the ground.  To kick-off the summer, we're launching our IP for Start-Ups series, with IP attorney Mike Van Loy.
Read more

Even After Enfish, Alice Still Casts a Shadow at the PTAB

June 6, 2016 | Blog | By Brad M Scheller, Harold Laidlaw

When it comes to Enfish, the PTAB may have just indicated that it prefers to cut bait. In Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-0021 (May 31, 2016), the PTAB held that U.S. Patent No 6,321,201 was void under Alice despite the Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Enfish v. Microsoft.
Read more

A New Hope for Software Patents?

June 2, 2016 | Blog | By Michael McNamara

Software patents have been facing intense scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for subject matter eligibility since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision in 2014.  In the last two years, the patent ecosystem (including USPTO examiners, PTAB, U.S. district courts, and the Federal Circuit) is generally considered unfavorable and sometimes hostile to software patents.
Read more

May 2016 101 Guidance from the USPTO

May 24, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy, Yogesh Patel

There have been some interesting recent developments, both at the Federal Circuit and the USPTO, regarding subject matter eligibility for patenting as it relates to computer-implemented inventions, software, and other technologies that have been heavily impacted over the past two years by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank.
Read more
“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.
Read more

Latest Post-Alice Guidance from the Federal Circuit

May 17, 2016 | Blog | By Michael Van Loy, Howard Wisnia

On Thursday, May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as an unpatentable abstract idea, of a software patent concerning a “self-referential” database in Enfish v. Microsoft. In so doing, the Federal Circuit provided some helpful guidance on avoiding Alice rejections for software patents.
Read more

Explore Other Viewpoints: