Patent Law

Subscribe to Patent Law via RSS

By Audrey A. Millemann

            The Federal Circuit has loosened the standard for recovering attorneys’ fees in patent infringement cases, making it easier for winning defendants to obtain their fees from plaintiffs. 

            The case is Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp. (Fed. Cir. Dec. 26, 2013), 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 25671. Kilopass and Sidense were competitors in the market for memory cells used in transistors. Kilopass obtained several patents on its technology. After reviewing a published patent application of Sidense for its memory cells, Kilopass embarked on an interesting course of conduct.

            First, Kilopass engaged counsel to determine whether Sidense infringed Kilopass’ patents. Based on the product described in Sidense’s patent application, Kilopass’ counsel believed that there might be an infringement case, and sent Sidense a letter inviting Sidense to license Kilopass’ patents or explain why Sidense’s products did not infringe Kilopass’ patents. Sidense replied with a specific explanation of why its products did not infringe Kilopass’ patents. Sidense also offered to subject its products to a confidential infringement analysis by a third party expert to prove its position. Kilopass then obtained a diagram of Sidense’s product and provided it to Kilopass’ counsel.  Counsel then concluded that Sidense had designed around Kilopass’ patents and that its products probably did not literally infringe the patents. In response, Kilopass retained a second counsel to analyze infringement. The second counsel made a preliminary finding that Sidense’s products probably did not literally infringe the patents, but might infringe under the doctrine of equivalents, and said that further investigation was needed to confirm this. Kilopass did not conduct further investigation with this counsel, but instead engaged a third counsel to analyze infringement. Then, based primarily on Kilopass’ own engineer’s findings, Kilopass concluded that Sidense infringed under the doctrine of equivalents. 

 Continue Reading Patent Infringement: Attorneys’ Fees A Little Easier to Get

 By: Lisa Y. Wang

This month, the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board ruled that Bottega Veneta, a luxury Italian fashion brand, well known for its "weave design" handbags and accessories, could register a trademark for that specific design. Bottega Veneta handbags and accessories do not have obvious logos on the outside, signifying its origin. Instead, the weave patterns, multiple thin strips of leather forming a weave pattern (much like a basket weave) at a 45 degree angle, serves as its "trademark" and source of origin. Bottega Veneta claims that it created this very specific leather weaving technique and pattern, known as intrecciato, in the 1960’s.   Since there is no logo, this easily made weave pattern is constantly copied by fast fashion retailers and other brands, hence Bottega Veneta’s attempt to register a trademark for that specific pattern.

Continue Reading Weaving a Trademark

By Audrey A. Millemann

A patent must sat­­isfy several requirements in order to be valid. One of these is the written description requirement, as set forth in 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶1. That subsection requires that a patent:

”contain a written description if the invention…in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains… to make and use the same…”

The purpose of the written description requirement is to demonstrate that the inventor is in possession of the invention (i.e., actually invented the claimed invention) as of the date the patent application was filed. In Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS, 723 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that a specification that is a “mere wish or plan” does not satisfy the written description requirement. The case is a strong reminder to patent applicants and practitioners that the written description requirement is critical.Continue Reading You Must Describe What You Actually Invented

By Audrey A. Millemann

Two interesting patent cases are before the United States Supreme Court. The first is Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The second is Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 695 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012).        

Does Inducing Infringement Require that a Single Party has Performed All of the Steps of a Method Claim?

In Akamai, the issue is whether a plaintiff suing a defendant for inducing infringement of a method patent must show that a single party performed all of the steps of the method.

Inducing infringement exists if a defendant instructs or causes another party to infringe a patent. With respect to a method patent, a defendant has induced infringement if it has instructed another party to perform all of the steps of the claimed method. The party who has induced infringement is an indirect infringer. The party who has performed all of the steps of the method claim is a direct infringer. “Divided infringement” is a phrase used to describe the situation where multiple parties have performed different steps of the claimed method. Continue Reading Patent Infringement Cases Before The Supreme Court

By Lisa Y. Wang

In April, we published an article about Fox Broadcasting Co. v. Dish Networks, LLC, where Fox Broadcasting was requesting a preliminary injunction against Dish Network, claiming that were engaged in copyright infringement by offering their Auto Hop on Dish Networks’ DVRs. As of that date, a judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction and Fox had appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July, 24, 2013, the Ninth Circuit rejected Fox’s appeal, and affirmed the district court’s refusal to enjoin Dish Network’s features. It affirmed the lower court’s reasoning that the consumer is the party causing a copy to be made, and not Dish Network. So if you subscribe to Dish Network and have the Auto Hop and "PrimeTime Anytime" features, no need to panic and switch cable/satellite providers, you can still watch your favorite television shows, commercial-free, without even touching the fast-forward button.

The Ninth Circuit confirmed that DVR recording is protected fair use, and since Fox did not have any copyright interest in the advertisements (the only content that was being skipped), it could not show that it was irreparably harmed by the features.   However, it may be a bit premature for Dish Network to break out the champagne, despite Dish’s executive vice-president’s statement that, "This decision is a victory for American consumers."   That is because this decision was made using the very high legal standard required to justify a preliminary injunction, and the deferential standard of review applied to denials of preliminary injunctions. Continue Reading UPDATE: You Can Still Hop Through Commercials