In a 7-2 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC that inter partes review does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court rejected an argument that only federal courts, and not executive branch tribunals or administrative courts… Continue Reading
Tag Archives: patent
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Finds Defendants Have Not Committed Acts of Infringement Sufficient to Establish Venue
Posted in Copyright LawThe U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute. Previously, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b),… Continue Reading
Patent Myths Corrected – Part Two
Posted in Copyright Law, Trademark LawMy last column was the first of two columns discussing some of the most common misconceptions or myths about patents. Here is the second part, starting with number five on my list. A Patent Does Not Give the Patent Owner the Right to Practice the Invention. Inventors and patent owners often assume that a patent… Continue Reading
Patent Myths Corrected – Part One
Posted in Patent LawPatent law is a complicated area of law governed by a confusing set of statutes and regulations that are interpreted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the federal courts. Patents themselves are sometimes almost unintelligible and, if intelligible, may require many hours of reading to understand. It is no wonder that… Continue Reading
Repeated Discovery Failures and Abusive Litigation Tactics Warrant Terminating Sanctions, Treble Damages, Attorney Fees and Permanent Injunction Against Defendant In Patent Litigation Case.
Posted in Trademark LawBy: Eric Caligiuri In TASER International, Inc. v. PhaZZer Electronics, Inc. et al, 6-16-cv-00366 (FLMD July 21, 2017, Order), a Florida District Court took the drastic step of entering a default judgment in favor of Plaintiff Taser, along with an award of compensatory and treble damages, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and… Continue Reading
Did the Supreme Court Just Close the Door on Eastern District of Texas Patent Plaintiffs?
Posted in Patent LawFor over 25 years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts have interpreted the patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) to allow plaintiffs to bring patent infringement cases against a corporation in any district court where there is personal jurisdiction over that corporate defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court… Continue Reading
Are the Tides Turning for Motions to Amend Claims in IPR Proceedings?
Posted in Patent LawThe Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) has rarely allowed patent owners to replace or modify claims during inter partes review (“IPR”), covered business method review, or post-grant review. In fact, in April 2016 the PTAB’s Motion to Amend Study reported that only 6 of 118, or about 5%, of such motions to amend claims… Continue Reading
One Is Not Enough for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1)
Posted in Patent LawIn Life Technologies v. Promega Corporation, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether supplying a single component from the United States of a multicomponent invention assembled abroad constitutes patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1). Under §271(f)(1), a party can be liable for patent infringement if it supplies from the United States “all or a substantial portion… Continue Reading
Divided Infringement – Expanding Patent Infringement Liability
Posted in Patent Law, Web/TechBy Audrey Millemann In 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals cast the net of patent infringement liability even more broadly, to cover direct infringement by “divided” (or “joint”) infringement. Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Akamai V”). In that case, the Federal Circuit established that a defendant… Continue Reading
Northern District of California Revises Local Patent Rules
Posted in Copyright Law, Legal Info, Patent LawOn January 17, 2017, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued revisions to its Local Patent Rules requiring early disclosure of damages-related discovery and contentions. The revised rules are effective immediately in all patent cases pending in the Northern District. Local Patent Rules are rules that apply to all civil… Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Requires Standing to Appeal PTAB’s Final Decisions
Posted in Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark LawAlthough arguably foreshadowed, some may be surprised to learn that a party with the right to challenge the validity of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) may not have the right to appeal an unfavorable decision. In Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, the Federal Circuit clarified that while there is no standing… Continue Reading
COVERED BUSINESS METHODS PATENTS — NOT SO BROAD!
Posted in Patent Law, Trademark LawThe Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in no uncertain terms that covered business method review has limits. In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 20764 (November 21, 2016), the court held that the… Continue Reading
Holiday Horror Series: Part 4 – HO, HO, HO! AND FA-LA-LA-LA-LA! MORE CHRISTMAS PATENTS
Posted in Patent Law, Trademark LawThe last time I checked (which was a couple of years ago), I found over 900 U.S. patents in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s database that had the word “Christmas” in the title. Every year at this time, I look at a few of the most interesting ones. Here’s one I really like: U.S…. Continue Reading
Can You Appeal the PTAB’s Decision to Institute Review of Patent Claims on Grounds Not Raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM Petition?
Posted in Patent LawThe America Invents Act provided several procedures for challenging the validity of patent claims, including inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”) and covered business method patent challenges (“CBM”). An IPR, PGR, or CBM challenge begins with a petition filed by the challenging party that identifies each claim challenged and the grounds for each challenge. … Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Rules the Patent Trial and Appeal Board Can Consider New Evidence During AIA Review Trial
Posted in Copyright Law, Legal Info, Patent Law, Trademark LawOn September 26, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit declined to review in a unanimous en banc decision a panel Federal Circuit decision affirming that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) at the Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) could hear new evidence during a trial, evidence that was not… Continue Reading
NO ICE, PLEASE!
Posted in Legal Info, UncategorizedBy Audrey Millemann California’s unfair competition and consumer protection laws protect consumers from false representations about products or services. These laws include the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code §17200, et seq.), the False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code §17500, et seq.), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code §1750). Lawsuits for… Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Holds the PTAB Must Apply Narrower Phillips Claim Construction Standard to Patents that Expire During Pendency of Re-exam
Posted in Patent LawBy: Eric Caligiuri In In re CSB-System Int’l, Inc., No. 15-1832 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2016), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that patents that expire during a pending re-examination before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) should be examined under the Phillips standard of claim construction, and not the… Continue Reading
The Seattle Seahawks’ 12th Man Flies Again
Posted in Trademark LawIf you regularly follow our publication, you may remember when I discussed the Seattle Seahawks and their use of the Texas A&M trademark “12TH MAN” over a year ago. If not, that’s okay too. In short, I discussed how the Seattle Seahawks have been utilizing the Texas A&M trademark without permission and were facing legal… Continue Reading
Small Burger Chain Has a Beef With Chipotle
Posted in Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark LawBy: Scott Hervey Chipotle’s entry into the burger business has a Boston based small burger chain up in arms. The Boston burger spot, which has been in operation since 2010 and goes by the name Tasty Burger, has a beef with the brand Chipotle has chosen for its restaurants, Tasty Made. Tasty Burger claims that Chipotle… Continue Reading
WATCH OUT! SUPREME COURT OPENS DOOR TO TREBLE DAMAGES IN PATENT CASES!
Posted in Copyright Law, Patent LawUp until now, it has been nearly impossible for a plaintiff to recover enhanced (up to treble) damages in patent infringement cases. The current test for enhanced damages, set forth by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in 2007 in In Re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (2007), was so rigid that it essentially… Continue Reading
The Supreme Court Rules the PTAB and District Courts Can Continue to Apply Different Standards for Interpreting Patent Claims
Posted in Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark LawPatent litigators and prosecutors have been waiting to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court would require the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to apply the same claim construction standard as the district courts. The answer is “No.” For over 100 years, the USPTO has used the “broadest reasonable construction” standard to interpret patent… Continue Reading
Pre-Issuance Damages for Patent Infringement – A Very Rare Remedy
Posted in Patent LawThe Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed an issue of first impression: what is the “actual notice” required under 35 U.S.C. §154(d) for a patent owner to recover damages for a defendant’s infringing conduct that occurred before the patent issued? Most people assume that a plaintiff cannot recover damages for patent infringement for infringing… Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit Finds Foreign Sales Do Not Exhaust Patent Rights
Posted in Patent LawIn Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., No. 14-1617 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc that a U.S. patent owner’s “first sale” of items in a foreign country does not exhaust the patent owner’s right to sue for patent infringement when those items are later… Continue Reading
Why Business Methods Are Difficult to Patent
Posted in Patent LawAlthough the general rule (based on 35 USC section 101) is that anything made by humans is patentable, there are exceptions. Laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Inventions that fall in these categories are “patent-ineligible,” that is, directed to subject matter that is not eligible to be patented. After the… Continue Reading
Connect with Weintraub on LinkedIn
Follow Weintraub on Twitter
Like Weintraub on Facebook
Subscribe to this blog via RSS