In Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc., IPR2017-00651 (PTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (per curiam), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found that petitioner Ventex Co., Ltd.’s (“Ventex) failure to disclose the existence of an agreement with a time-barred real party in interest unnecessarily delayed the proceedings and awarded over $32,000 in sanctions to the patent owner Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”).Continue Reading PTAB Finds Petitioner’s Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Warrants Substantial Monetary Sanctions

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has reduced the patent fees for small businesses and certain other applicants. This fee reduction is part of an effort to reduce financial burdens and resulting barriers that discourage or prevent these entities from participating in the patent system. Most of these fee reductions have an effective date of March 22, 2023, with the remaining ones effective as of April 1, 2023.Continue Reading USPTO Patent Fees Reduced for Small Businesses

I recently wrote about the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Moderna against Pfizer/BioNTech over the COVID-19 vaccine. In its complaint filed in federal district court in Boston last August, Moderna alleged that Pfizer/BioNTech infringed three of Moderna’s patents in developing the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Moderna seeks damages only for the time period after March 8, 2022, when Moderna announced that it would begin to enforce its patents after holding off doing so for 15 months while the pandemic was raging. The amount of money at stake is high. Pfizer/BioNTech sold over $26.4 billion of the vaccine in the first nine months of 2022; Moderna sold over $13.5 billion of its vaccine during the same time.Continue Reading The Battle Over the COVID-19 Vaccine Continues

In Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Omnivision Technologies, Inc., 8-22-cv-01979 (CDCA Mar. 1, 2023)( John A. Kronstadt), the Court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s indirect patent infringement claims for failure to sufficiently allege Defendant “made” the accused product. Plaintiff had argued that using the patented methods in the design process, which guides the subsequent manufacturing process, is sufficient to state a claim. However, the Court held the Plaintiff provides no authority supporting the contention that the use of a method to design a product is the same as the use of a method to manufacture the product, as contemplated by the statute. Continue Reading District Court Finds Use of a Method to Manufacture a Product Does Not Indirectly Infringe a Patented Method to Design A Product