In Apple Inc. et al. v. Hirshfeld, case number 5:20-cv-06128, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Court upheld the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) practice of denying patent reviews due to looming trials in district court.
Continue Reading District Court Dismisses Challenge to PTAB’s Discretion to Deny Inter Partes Review
As Scott Hervey mentioned on the IP Law Blog, a much-anticipated copyright reversion case involving the slasher franchise, Friday the 13th was decided. In this episode of the Briefing by the IP Law Blog, Scott and Josh Escovedo dive deeper into the lawsuit.
Continue Reading The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: A Spooky Copyright Decision for Producers of Friday the 13th Franchise
There are many requirements for obtaining a patent. One of those is the written description requirement. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112(a), the patent must describe the invention in writing. If the written description requirement is not met, the patent won’t be granted. If the patent has already been issued, it can be invalidated for failure to satisfy the written description requirement. Recently, in Juno Therapeutics, Inc. v. Kite Pharma, Inc., 2021 U.S. App. LexIs 25706 (Fed. Cir. 2021), a damage award of $1.2 billion for patent infringement was reversed for just this reason.
Continue Reading Written Description Remains Critical to Patents
In ruling on motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment, courts have found a number of patents ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a matter of law. However, in Berkheimer v. HP, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit indicated that in certain instances, the determination of patent eligibility under § 101 involves questions of fact and thus are questions for juries.
Continue Reading Juries Will Play Role in Some Questions of Patent Eligibility
Calling it a “ball of confusion,” the Ninth Circuit recently considered a case involving the music of the Turtles, SiriusXM Satellite Radio, and whether royalties are owed under California copyright law for music dating prior to 1972. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit reviewed nearly 200 years of copyright law to reach its conclusion.
In a lawsuit that was originally filed in 2013 titled, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., the Ninth Circuit confronted the issue of “whether digital and satellite radio stations have a duty to pay public performance royalties for pre-1972 songs under [California] copyright law.” The crux of the case turned on the meaning of the phrase, “exclusive ownership,” which the California legislature used in California’s copyright statute in 1872.
Continue Reading “Happy Together” – The Ninth Circuit Plays the Golden Oldies of Copyright Law
