In patent infringement cases, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C § 1406(a) where either (1) the company accused of infringement is incorporated or (2) where the company has committed acts of infringement and has a “regular and established place of business.” Given the increase in employees working from home in recent years, the question has arisen as to whether an employee’s home office is considered a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of patent venue. In most instances, the courts have indicated that an employee’s home office is insufficient to establish venue absent the company ratifying that home office as a “regular and established place of business.” However, the Federal Circuit’s ruling in In re Monolith Power Systems, Inc. may have reopened that question.
Continue Reading Do Employees Working from Home Impact Venue in Patent Litigation?

One of the most amazing accomplishments in the field of biotechnology has been the development and distribution of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID 19). The numbers tell the story.

The time from when the coronavirus’ RNA sequence, identified by China, was published on January 11, 2020 to the date that clinical trials in the U.S. began in March 2020 was 66 days. From the date the RNA sequence was published to the date that a vaccine was first administered to the public, on December 11, 2020, was 11 months. Within a year of the date the RNA sequence was published, both Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech were providing thousands of doses of mRNA vaccines to people around the world. The mRNA vaccines were extremely effective – they provided about 94-95% protection against severe illness, hospitalization, and death. These vaccines are now available to anyone over the age of six months. In the world’s wealthiest countries, and in much of the rest of the world, vaccine availability is no longer a factor getting vaccinated.
Continue Reading From Saving the World to Fighting Over IP: Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech

In SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar Beets LLC, 2-22-cv-02576 (CDCA Oct. 21, 2022) District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California found the parties did not sufficiently meet and confer as required by the Local Rules before Plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss Defendant’s noninfringement and invalidity counterclaims. The Court, in its discretion, still considered the motion to dismiss but ultimately summarily denied plaintiff’s motion.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Plaintiff Failed to Meet Pre-Filing Meet and Confer Requirements

In Mobile Equity Corp. v. Walmart Inc., 2-21-cv-00126 (EDTX Sep. 8, 2022) (Roy S. Payne), the Court found that the asserted claims were not directed towards an abstract idea and did not encompass unpatentable subject matter and therefore were not invalid under 35 U.S.C § 101.

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 101, “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” A claim falls outside of 35 U.S.C § 101 where (1) it is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Mobile Payment Patents Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101