By Audrey A. Millemann
A business’s intellectual property may be its most valuable asset. Whether it is biotechnology, trade names, business methods, or computer software, intellectual property should be protected to the greatest extent possible in order to maximize the value of the business. This article summarizes the types of intellectual property protection that are available.
By Audrey Millemann
The United States Supreme Court has dismissed a closely-watched patent infringement case, declining to narrow patentable subject matter. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 04-607 (U.S. Supreme Court, June 22, 2006). The stage is set, however, for just that.
Continue Reading Patentable Subject Matter -Not Any Clearer
By Audrey Millemann
The United States Supreme Court may be heading towards dramatically changing the rules in one of the most significant areas of patent law: nonobviousness.
Continue Reading PATENTS – MORE OBVIOUS?
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a short ruling Monday that will allow eBay users to continue to use the popular “Buy It Now” option on its website. In the process, the Court may have significantly changed the shape of patent litigation.
At issue in eBay Inc. et al. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., was U.S. Patent No. 5,845,265, a business method patent held by MerExchange for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between individuals on the Internet. The patent is designed to promote trust among buyers and sellers by establishing a central authority to process the transaction.
Continue Reading Supreme Court – You Can Still “Buy It Now” On eBay
A new case decided by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has made it even harder to prove inequitable conduct. Inequitable conduct, which can be asserted by a defendant in a patent infringement suit as an affirmative defense or by a plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action, results in the patent being unenforceable. As is true of patent invalidity, inequitable conduct must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In M.Eagles Tool Warehouse, Inc. v. Fisher Tooling Company, Inc., 439 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. February 27, 2006), the Federal Circuit held that intent could not be inferred solely from the patent applicant’s failure to disclose a prior art reference.
Continue Reading Inequitable Conduct…Disintegrating
