Intellectual Property

Filing an appeal brief with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can be an effective way to advance prosecution and secure allowable claims. After an appellant’s filing of a PTAB appeal brief, an examiner may respond with an examiner’s answer. 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37, 41.39.

A recent U.S. District Court decision has clarified a potential danger when filing terminal disclaimers that contain overly-broad language. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Hagenbuch v. Sonrai Systems interpreted the terminal disclaimer language “I hereby disclaim the terminal part of any patent granted on the above-identified application or any continuation of it” as applying to any continuation application claiming priority from the application in which this terminal disclaimer was filed.

Late last week, in an opinion authored by Judge Prost, a panel of the Federal Circuit vacated a $16 million damages award won by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in its patent infringement suit against Cisco Systems, Inc. 

Yesterday the Federal Circuit ruled in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company that vesting the Patent Office with power to take back previously-conferred patent rights through inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment.

Mintz has won extraordinary relief for its client, Straight Path IP Group, Inc., convincing the Federal Circuit to completely reverse and remand an IPR final written decision adverse to a patent owner for the first time.

In July the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued additional guidelines for determining Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as previously discussed at Global IP Matters. 

Last week, the Federal Circuit explained that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err when it allowed a petitioner to revise its Inter Partes Review Reply brief after first cautioning the petitioner that the PTAB may reject the Reply in its entirety if it improperly raised new issues.

On November 10, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC, and struck a blow to both the ITC and the entertainment and software industries by overturning the ITC’s opinion and finding that “[t]he Commission’s decision to expand the scope of its jurisdiction to include electronic transmissions of digital data runs counter to the ‘unambiguously expressed intent of Congress’” and stating that the ITC’s jurisdiction is limited to “material things.”

On Monday, October 19, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear two patent infringement cases on the issue of willfulness. The first case is Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer Inc. and the second one is Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.

The Federal Circuit has again held that it lacks jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board in Inter Partes Reviews, continuing the Court’s apparent “hands off” approach to reviewing PTAB decisions in IPRs.

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated the trial court’s denial of Apple’s post-trial motion for a permanent injunction against Samsung.

The International Trade Commission proposed a series of new procedural rules, which were published in the Federal Register on September 24, 2015.

The United States and Australia each offer the option of filing a provisional patent application before filing a national or PCT non-provisional patent application.

On March 31 we posted about the Patent Office rolling out a series of rulemakings for improving post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) pursuant to public feedback to a Request for Comments published by the Office last June.

Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a pivotal decision in Microsoft v. Motorola regarding the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.

On August 10, 2015, the full US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion in Suprema, Inc. v. ITC, which overturned an earlier panel decision and confirmed, by a 6–4 vote, that the International Trade Commission (ITC) has jurisdiction over allegations of induced infringement.

Late last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its much-anticipated decision in Microsoft v. Motorola, a breach of contract action brought by Microsoft alleging that Motorola violated its commitment to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms.

In a unanimous full court decision issued yesterday, the Federal Circuit availed itself of “the opportunity to revisit the § 271(a) question” left unanswered by the Supreme Court last year, and outlined “the governing legal framework for direct infringement” of method claims.

On July 29, Representatives Charles Boustany, Jr. (R-La.) and Richard E. Neal (D. Mass.) introduced draft legislation to the House Ways and Means Committee that would provide favorable tax treatment on certain intellectual property as a means of encouraging U.S. companies to bring their intellectual property back into the United States.

On Tuesday, August 11, the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in ClearCorrect v. International Trade Commission, a case that will decide whether the ITC has the power to exclude intangible items that are imported digitally rather than physically.