The IP Law Blog Focusing on legal trends in data security, cloud computing, data privacy, and anything E

Tag Archives: patent

Federal Circuit Sets Higher Standard for Early Alice Motions

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Intellectual Property Litigation, IP, Web/Tech

In Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. et. al., the Federal Circuit recently held that a lower court wrongly invalidated four patents under Alice because they contain an inventive concept.  The four patents at issue share the same specification and generally relate to connecting a data capture device, e.g., a digital camera, to a mobile… Continue Reading

If You Can’t Describe It, You Can’t Patent It!

By Audrey A Millemann on Posted in IP, Patent Law

One of the requirements for obtaining a patent is the written description requirement – the specification must include a written description of the invention. 35 U.S.C §112(a).  This requirement means that the specification must fully disclose what the invention is.  The purpose of the written description requirement is to demonstrate to persons skilled in the… Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Rules America Invents Acts Reviews by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board arm of the Patent and Trademark Office are Constitutional

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News, Patent Law

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

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Finds Defendants Have Not Committed Acts of Infringement Sufficient to Establish Venue

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Copyright Law

The 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 One

By Audrey A Millemann on Posted in Patent Law

Patent 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.

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Trademark Law

By:  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?

By Jo Dale Carothers on Posted in Patent Law

For 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

One Is Not Enough for Patent Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(1)

By Jo Dale Carothers on Posted in Patent Law

In 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

By Audrey A Millemann on Posted in Patent Law, Web/Tech

By 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

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Copyright Law, Legal Info, Patent Law

On 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

By Jo Dale Carothers on Posted in Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark Law

Although 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

Can You Appeal the PTAB’s Decision to Institute Review of Patent Claims on Grounds Not Raised in an IPR, PGR, or CBM Petition?

By Jo Dale Carothers on Posted in Patent Law

The 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

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Copyright Law, Legal Info, Patent Law, Trademark Law

On 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!

By Audrey A Millemann on Posted in Legal Info, Uncategorized

By 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

By Eric Caligiuri on Posted in Patent Law

By:  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

By Josh H. Escovedo on Posted in Trademark Law

If 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

The Supreme Court Rules the PTAB and District Courts Can Continue to Apply Different Standards for Interpreting Patent Claims

By Jo Dale Carothers on Posted in Copyright Law, Patent Law, Trademark Law

Patent 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

By Audrey A Millemann on Posted in Patent Law

The 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