Intellectual Property

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.

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.”

On January 16, 2017, the European Unified Patent Court (UPC) announced that a Preparatory Committee is currently working under an assumption that the Provisional Application Phase (PAP) of the UPC will presumably begin in May 2017, and the UPC can become operational in December 2017.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The USPTO has published its notice of proposed rulemaking for the FY 2017 patent fee schedule in the Federal Register. The USPTO proposes fee increases to recover its estimated costs for patent operations and achieve its strategic goals of optimizing patent quality and timeliness and increasing international efforts to improve IP policy, protection, and enforcement.

The plot just thickened in the long-running debate over where patent cases should be litigated.

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).

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.

The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.

On October 28, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register proposing revisions to the materiality standard for the duty to disclose information in patent applications and reexamination proceedings in light of Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc).

The America Invents Act (“AIA”) mandates that a Covered Business Method Review is available only for challenging the validity of covered business method patents.

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.

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.

An important question for any plaintiff alleging trade secret misappropriation is: “How much detail should I provide about the stolen trade secrets in the complaint?” Answering this question often requires the balancing of two important considerations.

Trade secret theft is a growing threat to American businesses. One obstacle to addressing misappropriation through a lawsuit can be a lack of direct evidence of theft.

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.