Intellectual Property

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched a new Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form that allows practitioners to submit an online request for an interview with an examiner.  The online form allows applicants to request an interview at any time without calling the examiner over the phone and leaving a message, which is a common practice now.

On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order in Janssen v. Celltrion explaining that an accused patent infringer’s failure to fully engage in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) “patent dance” information exchange process may expose the biosimilar maker to eventual infringement damages in the form of lost profits, and preclude limiting damages to a reasonable royalty.

On Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that could have a profound impact on where patent infringement cases may be litigated.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the highly anticipated case regarding the patent exhaustion doctrine, Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., No. 15-1189.

While design patents are gaining wider attention—thanks in part to the highly-publicized litigation involving Samsung and Apple—they still remain an underutilized form of intellectual property (IP) protection. This blog discusses the benefits of design patent protection, and what is required to obtain a design patent.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced this week that the Global Dossier program has expanded to include access to more patent applications worldwide.

In the recent decision of Clarilogic v. Formfree Holdings, the Federal Circuit invalidated the patentee’s (Formfree) claim to a “computer-implemented method for providing certified financial data indicating financial risk about an individual.” 

In a widely anticipated move with implications for patent litigation across the country, the Supreme Court ruled today that the equitable defense of laches is not available to limit damages in patent infringement cases subject to the six-year damages limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 286.

Recently, the U.S. District Court of Delaware dismissed a complaint filed by Genentech under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). The complaint was filed in response to Amgen seeking FDA approval to commercialize a biosimilar version of Genentech’s cancer drug, Avastin®.

On March 14, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified, in a precedential opinion, that an anticipating reference must supply all of the claim elements, regardless of what a person of skill in the art might envision when reading the reference.

On March 3, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed, in a precedential opinion, that prosecution disclaimers may only limit the scope of a claim where the disclaimer is “both clear and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art.”

A recent decision in the Western District of Kentucky highlights the importance of explaining in a complaint under the Defend Trade Secrets Act why the allegedly misappropriated information qualifies for trade secret protection.

Nondisclosure or confidentiality agreements (NDAs) are among the most common documents attorneys draft and review for clients.  They are so common, in fact, that where a client needs to execute a large number of facially distinct but substantively similar NDAs, it may make sense for the client to draft and review these documents itself.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) has more recently been indicating to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) the importance of explaining its reasoning when invalidating patent claims.

The Federal Circuit has further clarified the scope of the covered business method (CBM) review program under the America Invents Act (AIA), explaining in Secure Axcess, LLC. v. PNC Bank National Association that in order for patent to be a CBM patent, it is not enough that the claimed subject matter may be used in a financial activity.

As regular readers of this blog will know, our cross-disciplinary Trade Secrets team has been closely monitoring the development of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

In recent years, software patents have come under fire from legislation (the American Invents Act) that has generally made patents easier to invalidate, and from court decisions (the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank1 and its progeny) that have made computer-implemented inventions more vulnerable to subject matter eligibility challenges.

New rules for patent cases in the Northern District of California will significantly affect litigation and settlement of cases in Silicon Valley’s backyard. Lawyers litigating cases in the district after the January 17, 2017 change should be wary of the new requirements that set the Northern District of California apart.

For just the third time ever, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB” or the “Board”) recently sided with a Patent Owner in an inter partes review (“IPR”) to find that evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness compelled rejection of the Petitioner’s invalidity challenges.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) civil seizure mechanism provides victims of trade secret theft with a tool to immediately freeze dissemination of stolen proprietary information. Using civil seizure, a court may direct federal marshals to seize property necessary to prevent the promulgation of stolen trade secrets.