Photo of Audrey A Millemann

Audrey A Millemann

Subscribe to Audrey A Millemann's Posts

Audrey Millemann is a shareholder with Weintraub Tobin and practices in the Intellectual Property and Litigation sections. She is a litigator and a registered patent attorney.  Audrey advises clients on all issues of intellectual property law, including infringement, validity, and ownership of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

Follow:Read more about Audrey A MillemannAudrey's Linkedin Profile

Zombies have become part of our lives.  We are fascinated with vampires, but we are obsessed with zombies.

Our obsession is best evidenced by the tremendous success of AMC’s television series “The Walking Dead,” about the zombie apocalypse.  The show first aired on Halloween night in 2010 and was watched by 5.35 million viewers.  It premiered worldwide the same week, in 120 countries.  The premier was preceded by a zombie invasion (orchestrated by AMC and Fox) on October 26, 2010 in 26 cities throughout the world, including Hong Kong, Taipei, and Los Angeles.  The show is now going strong in its fourth season.

Movies about zombies are also alive and well.  Since 1980, zombie movies have brought in almost $1 billion.  The highest grossing zombie movie was Sony’s 2009 “Zombieland,” bringing in $75 million since it opened.  “Warm Bodies,” one of several zom-rom-coms (as this genre is now called) has grossed $65 million since it opened three months ago.  Other favorites include the “Resident Evil” and “Night of the Living Dead” series, and “Shaun of the Dead.”

Thus, even though zombies have been walking (slowly) among us for hundreds (thousands?) of years, we have really just recently (as evidenced by our 33 years of TV and movies) noticed them.  Zombies have been here all along.  In fact, they are way ahead of us in the intellectual property world.

Zombies have amassed a significant number of U.S. patents for their inventions.  The biggest problem zombies face is a defining one: how to come back from being dead.  The undead have developed several inventions to solve this problem and they have obtained patents on these inventions.  (We are not sure why a zombie would want a patent, but we don’t know who to ask, so we can’t tell you.)
Continue Reading Zombies Have IP Too

The patent laws require that the claims of a patent (which define the boundaries of what the patent owner can protect) “particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter … of the invention.”  35 U.S.C. §112, ¶2.  This requirement is referred to as “definiteness.”  A patent that fails to satisfy this requirement may be found to be invalid for indefiniteness.

The purpose of the definiteness requirement is to provide the public with notice of what the patent owner owns, and what would be an infringement of the patent.  Thus, the definiteness requirement serves to encourage innovation by providing certainty as to what the patent protects.

This year, the United States Supreme Court vacated a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision on the grounds that the Federal Circuit’s test for indefiniteness was not precise enough and would result in confusion in the district courts.  The case is Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 189 L.Ed. 2d 37 (June 2, 2014).

In 2004, the patent owner, Biosig, sued Nautilus for infringement of a patent covering a heart-rate monitor used in exercise.  Biosig’s heart monitor was different from existing heart monitors in that it was more accurate because it did not measure both electrical signals from the user’s heart and from the muscles.  The Biosig heart monitor used two pairs of electrodes, one pair for each hand of the user.  Biosig alleged that Nautilus, who owned the StairMaster brand of exercise machine, used the patented heart monitor in StairMaster machines.
Continue Reading Patents Must Provide Clear Notice of Their Scope

In a June decision, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a key issue in patent law: whether a party can be liable for patent infringement when there is no underlying act of direct infringement.  Specifically, the court addressed whether a party who instructs multiple parties to perform different steps of a method patent can be liable for inducing infringement.  The Court’s answer:  no. The case is Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court June 2, 2014) 2014 U.S. LEXIS 3817.

Patent infringement is either direct or indirect.  Direct infringement exists when a defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports into the United States a patented product or performs all of the steps of a patented method.  Indirect infringement exists when the defendant does not itself commit direct infringement, but causes another party to do so.  There are two types of indirect infringement: inducing and contributory.  A defendant has induced infringement when it instructs or causes another party to infringe a patent.  For a method patent, a defendant induces infringement if it instructs another party to perform all of the steps of the method.  The party who performs all of the steps is liable as a direct infringer, while the inducer is liable as an indirect infringer.  Contributory infringement, which is not relevant here, exists when a defendant sells or offers to sell a component that can only be used in infringing a patented invention.
Continue Reading No Inducing Patent Infringement Unless There is Direct Infringement

The long-awaited decision by the United States Supreme Court on business method patents was issued on June 19, 2014.  Unfortunately, the decision raised more questions than it answered.  The expectation was that the Supreme Court would clearly explain the difference between unpatentable abstract ideas and patentable software, including business methods.  Instead, the Court issued a very narrow decision with broad, but uncertain ramifications.  The Court applied a test it has previously relied upon, striking down all of the patents in the case and expressly stating that it was not opining on the patentability of software or business methods in general.

The case is Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 2014 U.S. Lexis 4303 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 19, 2014). Alice Corporation’s patents were directed to a computer-implemented process of minimizing “settlement risk” – the risk to a party in a financial transaction that the other party would not perform the transaction, by creating an intermediary using “shadow” financial records of both parties.  The claims covered the computer system to perform the process, the computerized method itself, and a computer-readable medium with the instructions to perform the method.

Alice Corporation had sued CLS Bank for patent infringement.  The district court had granted summary judgment for CLS Bank on the grounds that all of the claims were not eligible for patent protection as they were directed to an abstract idea.  A panel of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals had reversed the district court, but then, in an en banc hearing, affirmed the district court in a set of multiple opinions.  A plurality of the Federal Circuit found all of Alice Corporation’s claims patent-ineligible, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).Continue Reading Business Method Patents: Murkier Water

Let me start with a disclaimer.  This column is not really about intellectual property.  It’s about the unexpected – what happens when people stick to their principles and challenge the way it’s always been done.  Actually, this column is about a horse.  (But I’ll say something about intellectual property along the way.)

I have a second disclaimer.  I do not like horseracing.  It is physically stressful on the horses (who are mostly two and three–year olds) and they frequently get injured.  It is also a sport that often treats horses as disposable commodities; many racehorses are sent to slaughter after failed careers, although that is changing.  But this is a story with so much goodness, it has to be told.

First, the horse.  He is California Chrome.  He’s a three-year-old thoroughbred racehorse.  He now has a large fan club of “chromies” on social media everywhere.  The press calls him the Cinderella horse and the Sacramento Bee’s cartoonist Tom Meyer even portrayed him as a commencement speaker in Tuesday’s paper.  The press didn’t call him anything until he won the Kentucky Derby, the first leg of the Triple Crown, on May 3.  He was definitely under the radar, born and raised in California and starting his racing career here, in a sport dominated by Kentucky-bred horses.  Then there were those who said he couldn’t win the Preakness Stakes, the second leg of the Triple Crown.  On May 17, he won that one too, against a field of mostly fresh horses (horses who had not raced in the Kentucky Derby two weeks earlier and had had longer times to recuperate).

California Chrome is a chestnut colt with a white blaze and four white stockings.  Chestnut is a color like a shiny new copper penny.  The white markings are called “chrome” in horseracing.  His name was picked by a waitress out of several choices provided by the owners.

California Chrome was born in 2011 in Coalinga, California.  California Chrome’s sire (father) was Lucky Pulpit, who won some races in California.  His dam (mother) was Love The Chase, who won one of the six races she ran.  California Chrome was her first foal.

Trainers of other horses have observed that California Chrome has an easy-going personality, doesn’t get overly anxious going into the starting gate, and knows how to control his speed.  I could go on and on about this horse (or any horse for that matter), but I’ll move on.
Continue Reading Best of Luck to California Chrome!