Intellectual Property

On June 15, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued Notice in the Federal Register announcing a new pilot program, the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot.

PART 1: Pebble Technology had an interesting goal.  It wanted to design and build a watch that could connect to iPhone and Android smartphones using Bluetooth. It wanted to allow the watch to alert a wearer with a silent vibration for incoming calls, emails and messages.

For only the fourth time in its history, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has granted a motion to amend in an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding, finding all substitute claims proposed by the patent owner patentable.

Administrative Law Judge Essex has made another important contribution to the ongoing conversation regarding the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) at the International Trade Commission.

On June 12, 2015, in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California’s finding that the method claims in U.S. Patent 6,258,540 (‘540 patent) for detecting paternally-inherited cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) in maternal plasma or serum were invalid because these claims were not directed to patent eligible subject matter (Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., No. 2014-1139, 2014-1144 (Fed. Cir., June 12, 2015)).

Administrative Law Judge Essex recently issued the public version of his Initial Determination on Remand in International Trade Commission investigation No. 337-TA-613, In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (the 613 Investigation).

In a confluence of IP and antitrust law, a three judge panel for the D.C. Circuit recently affirmed a lower court decision upholding the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) 2013 modification of regulations under the Hart Scott Rodino (“HSR”) Act to require reporting of even partial transfers of pharmaceutical patent rights as an “asset acquisition” if all commercially significant rights are transferred.

Yesterday, a Federal Circuit panel comprising Judges Newman, Lourie, and Chen heard oral argument in Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (Fed. Cir. No. 2015-1499), the first ever case requiring the Appeals Court to address the meaning of various provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

On May 22, 2015, in a much-watched case, the Second Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Actavis PLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Forest Laboratories, LLC (collectively “Actavis” or “Forest”), finding that Actavis’s “hard switch” strategy to launch an extended-release version of its blockbuster Alzheimer’s therapy and de-list the immediate-release version would likely violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

On May 22, 2015, in a much-watched case, the Second Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against Actavis PLC and its wholly owned subsidiary, Forest Laboratories, LLC (collectively “Actavis” or “Forest”), finding that Actavis’s “hard switch” strategy to launch an extended-release version of its blockbuster Alzheimer’s therapy and delist the immediate-release version would likely violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

On March 31 we posted about the Patent Office rolling out a series of rulemakings for improving post-grant proceedings, beginning with a first rule package of “quick fixes” this spring.

The Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. on Tuesday holding that a patent infringement defendant’s good faith belief that the patent in suit is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b).

On April 30, 2015, the International Trade Commission issued the public version of its opinion reviewing ALJ Thomas B. Pender’s Initial Determination in Investigation No. 337-TA-883, finding the Respondents in default due to spoliation of evidence, and ordering the Respondents, jointly and severally with their counsel, to pay certain of Complainant’s fees and costs.

Welcome to the blog’s first post in a series about restriction requirements! This series will explore nuances in restriction requirement law and provide strategies for most effectively handling restriction requirements, both before and after they arise during prosecution of a U.S. patent.

Today the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posted on its website Revision 14 of its Standard Operating Procedure 1 (SOP 1). SOP 1 covers the assignment of Administrative Patent Judges to merits panels, interlocutory panels, and expanded panels in appeals, interferences, and AIA Reviews.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("the Board") recently announced the addition of its March 26, 2015 decision in Dell, Inc. et al. v. Electronics and Telecomms. Res. Inst., IPR2015-00549 (“the ‘549 IPR”) to its online list of Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.

On May 6, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) submitted public comments to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) commending the PTO for its efforts to enhance patent quality and making specific recommendations on how the PTO may improve its processes.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently launched the Patent Application Alert Service (PAAS), a free electronic tool aimed to keep the public apprised of the publication of patent applications.

The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl.

Have you seen John Oliver’s piece about abuses in the patent system? If not, take a look here. The ‘Last Week Tonight’ host has quite a bit of fun at the expense of the patent system.