Willful patent infringement can result in enhanced, and in some case treble, damages but not in every instance. Because the standard for finding willful infringement has traditionally been lower than that for enhancing damages, a finding of willful infringement does not guarantee an award of enhanced damages.  However, a 2019 Federal Circuit opinion caused confusion, suggesting the standards were essentially the same.  SRI Int’l, Inc.  v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (“SRI II”) 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019).  In SRI Int’l, Inc.  v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (“SRI III”) (Fed. Cir. 2021), the Federal Circuit acknowledged the confusion and clarified these standards.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Clarifies Standards for Willful Patent Infringement and Enhanced Damages

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 In re: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., case number 2021-165, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit validated a possible framework for courts and plaintiffs in patent cases to significantly speed up the process of serving complaints on foreign defendants.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Allows Easier Foreign Corporation Service Requirements

In Thaler v. Commissioner of Patents, case number VID 108 of 2021, in the Federal Court of Australia, an Australian Federal Judge became the first known jurist to rule that inventions developed by artificial intelligence can qualify for patent protection.

The case involved a patent application from Dr. Stephen Thaler, a researcher who runs a Missouri company called Imagination Engines. An artificial intelligence system, which has been described as a device for the autonomous bootstrapping of unified sentience (DABUS), was named as the inventor by Dr. Thaler. DABUS was the inventor of two inventions, a type of improved beverage container and a type of flashing beacon meant to be used in emergencies.
Continue Reading Australian Judge Rules Inventions Developed by Artificial Intelligence Can Qualify for Patent Protection

Patents protect inventions.  However, patents protect only certain inventions.  In order to be patentable, an invention must fall within one of four categories of patent-eligible subject matter: articles of manufacture, machines, processes, and compositions of matter. 35 U.S.C. §101.  There are some things that are not patentable (i.e. are patent-ineligible subject matter): laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.

In 2014, in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 219 (2014), the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether an invention is patent-eligible.  In the first step, a determination is made as to whether the claimed invention falls within one of the categories of patent-ineligible subject matter.  If it does, the second step is performed:  a determination of whether the claimed invention has an inventive concept that transforms the patent-ineligible subject matter into something patentable.


Continue Reading Once Again, Generic Computer Systems That Do Routine Functions are Not Patentable!