Infringement

Subscribe to Infringement via RSS

Miller Mendel Inc. filed a lawsuit against the City of Anna, Texas (“the City”), in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of Claims 1, 5, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,043,188 (the “’188 patent”). The ’188 patent primarily pertains to a software system designed to manage pre-employment background investigation processes. Specifically, Claim 1 exemplifies a computerized method that involves: (1) receiving data related to an applicant; (2) storing new applicant information; (3) transmitting an applicant hyperlink; (4) receiving an electronic response from the applicant; (5) determining a reference class; (6) selecting a reference set; (7) transmitting a reference hyperlink; (8) receiving an electronic response from the reference; (9) storing the electronic response from the reference; and (10) generating a recommended reference list.Continue Reading Another Example of Ineligible Software Patent Claims

In Copan Italia S.p.A. et al. v. Puritan Medical Products Company LLC et al., the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction to handle an appeal based on arguments under the Pandemic Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (“PREP”) Act.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Lacked Jurisdiction to Address Appeal Based on Arguments Under The PREP Act

Inline Plastics Corp. (“Inline”) filed a lawsuit against Lacerta Group, LLC (“Lacerta”), alleging infringement of several patents related to tamper-resistant containers and methods of making such containers using thermoformed plastic. The district court granted Inline summary judgment of infringement on a subset of claims, but the jury found that the remaining asserted claims were not infringed and that all the asserted claims (including those already held infringed) were invalid. The parties then filed posttrial motions, including Inline’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and Lacerta’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, both of which were denied. Inline appealed on the grounds that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law of no invalidity and that an error in the jury instructions with respect to the law of obviousness requires a new trial. Lacerta cross-appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of attorneys’ fees and the without prejudice dismissal of certain patent claims Inline voluntarily withdrew during trial. Continue Reading Inline for a New Trial