In Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., case number 18-2140, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently considered whether the appointment of the Board’s Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”) by the Secretary of Commerce, as currently set forth in Title 35, violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The… Continue Reading
Tag Archives: patent
When Does A Patent Expire? Ask the Federal Circuit!
Posted in IP, Patent LawBefore 1995, the term of a U.S. utility patent was 17 years from the day the patent issued. In 1994, the federal statutes were changed to make the patent term 20 years from the effective filing date of the patent application. This change was part of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and was intended to… Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Holds That Claim Language Can Limit the Scope of a Design Patent
Posted in IP, Patent LawIn Curver Luxembourg SARL v. Home Expressions Inc., case number 18-2214, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the claim language of a design patent can limit its scope where the claim language supplies the only instance of an article of manufacture that appears nowhere in the figures. Plaintiff Curver… Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Invalidates Garage Door Opener Patent Because It Is an Abstract Idea
Posted in IP, Patent LawHave you ever driven away from your home and then had that irritating doubt in your mind as to whether you remembered to close your garage door? I know I have. No matter how hard I try to search my brain’s archives, I really don’t remember whether I closed the garage door even though I… Continue Reading
Federal Circuit Sets Higher Standard for Early Alice Motions
Posted in Intellectual Property Litigation, IP, Web/TechIn 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!
Posted in IP, Patent LawOne 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
Posted in IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News, Patent LawIn 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
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
Connect with Weintraub on LinkedIn
Follow Weintraub on Twitter
Like Weintraub on Facebook
Subscribe to this blog via RSS