Tag Archives: Patents

Left Empty Handed: Valve Shut Down on Written Prior Art, Highlighting Importance of System Art

System art is of increasing importance in patent disputes despite being frequently overlooked or “left for later” in many cases.  A recent decision in the Ironburg Inventions v. Valve Corp. case highlights the importance of system prior art, particularly as IPR success rates have dropped from their high points in 2012-15.… Continue Reading

Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars

In two decisions recently designated as “precedential,” the PTAB rejected two theories raised by petitioners for why the service of a complaint should not trigger Section 315(b)’s one-year time bar for filing a petition. In the first case, the Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that a complaint must be served by a plaintiff that has … Continue Reading

PTO Cancer Immunotherapy Fast Track

In response to President Obama’s National Cancer Moonshot initiative to eliminate cancer, the USPTO has launched the “Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program.” The Pilot Program provides an accelerated review for applications related to cancer immunotherapy and is set to launch in July 2016. According to the USPTO, this initiative:… Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Finds Software-Related Claims Patent Eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

On May 12, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the patent eligibility of software in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016), concluding that the claimed database software was patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims were not directed to an abstract idea.  … Continue Reading

High Court Takes on Laches and Patents

As published by The Daily Journal on May 11, 2016. Businesses dread getting letters that make claims of patent infringement. Such letters often raise complex questions of patent law that require specialized advice and demand a license fee that eats into company profits. Sometimes, however, the patent owner fails to follow up on the letter, and … Continue Reading

An Unreasonable Royalty Rate is No Gaming Matter

The Honorable Judge James L. Robart recently took on the challenging task of determining a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents (“SEP”). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, No. C10-11823 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). This decision comes after a two-year patent war between Microsoft and Motorola. … Continue Reading

SIPO’s Draft Measures on Service Invention

On November 12, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) released the Draft Measures on Service Invention《职务发明条例草案(征求意见稿)》(the “Draft Measures”) for public comments. Generally speaking, the Draft Measures enhance the rights of employee inventors, but create some uncertainty for employers.… Continue Reading

Belkin International, Inc. v. Kappos – A Cautionary Tale in the Intricate Arena of Inter Partes Reexamination

By Michael Murphy and Martin Bader On Tuesday of last week, the Federal Circuit held that a party bringing a request for inter-partes reexamination may not appeal a decision by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that certain prior art does not raise a substantial new question of patentability. See Belkin International, … Continue Reading

What You Need to Know About the New Inter Partes Review Process

By Daniel Yannuzzi On September 16th, 2012, new rules go into effect for post-grant proceedings for review of United States Patents. Among these are rules for post-grant review of issued patents, inter partes review and transitional post-grant review proceeding for covered business method patents. This article looks at the new requirements for inter partes review.… Continue Reading

What You Need to Know About the New Post-Grant Review Process for U.S. Patents

By Daniel Yannuzzi On September 16th, 2012, new rules go into effect for post-grant proceedings for review of United States Patents. Among these are rules for post-grant review of issued patents, inter partes review and transitional post-grant review proceedings for covered business-method patents. This article looks at the new requirements for post-grant review.… Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Declines to Adopt Test for Patent Eligibility Set Forth in CLS Bank

By Martin Bader and Matthew M. Mueller A three judge panel (Lourie*, Prost, Wallach) of the Federal Circuit recently handed down the Federal Circuit’s second decision in a month on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101. In a unanimous decision, the court in Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (No. … Continue Reading

New USPTO Satellite Offices Target Centers of Innovation

By Nathaniel Bruno and Ali Hossein-Khan-Tehrani [1] While the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has long been recognized as the U.S. government’s primary mechanism for encouraging and rewarding innovation by individuals, it has recently engaged in a concentrated season of internal administrative innovation. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), signed into law on … Continue Reading

Calcar and Thorner: Attempting to Reconcile the Federal Circuit’s Claim Construction Jurisprudence

By Nam Kim and Martin Bader In Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (Moore, Rader & Aiken (D. Or. sitting by designation)), the Federal Circuit explained that, under Phillips, a claim term is given its ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in … Continue Reading

CLS Bank: The patent eligibility of computerized trading platforms for exchanging obligations

By Barry Wilson and Martin Bader On July 9, 2012, a three judge panel of the Federal Circuit in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation (Appeal No. 2011-1301) ("CLS Bank"), decided a case of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In a split decision, the panel reversed the district court’s finding that three Alice Corporation patents claiming a computerized … Continue Reading

Supreme Court confirms that generic drug manufacturers can challenge brand-name use-code descriptions in patent litigation

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1670 (Apr. 17, 2012) By Nagendra Setty and Bill Blonigan The Hatch-Waxman Act Congress designed the Hatch-Waxman Act (codified at 21 U.S.C. § 355(b), (j), (l) and 35 U.S.C. §§ 156, 271, and 282) to inspire medical innovation by giving medical-device … Continue Reading

Courts to play greater role moderating enhanced damages for willful patent infringement

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2012) By Martin Bader and Bill Blonigan In this medical-device patent-infringement action, an Arizona federal jury found that W.L. Gore willfully infringed Bard’s Prosthetic Vascular Graft patent. The District Court then decided to double the jury’s $185.6 million damages award. Gore … Continue Reading

Is A Defendant A Willful Patent Infringer? Trial Courts Must Decide Whether The Actions Are Objectively Reasonable

By Mark McGrath The Federal Circuit’s recent decisions have sought to address a number of issues relating to damages in patent cases. In its recent decision in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., No. 2010-1510, ___ F.3d ___ (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2012), available at http://www.cafc. uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinionsorders/ 10-1510.pdf (“Bard”), the Federal … Continue Reading

Section viii Statements — Still A Viable Route to Generic Approval Where the Application Is Not Claimed in an Orange Book Patent

By Nagendra Setty and Mark E. McGrath In its recent decision in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Apotex Corp., Nos. 2011-1182 – 2011-1190 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2012) (hereinafter the “AstraZeneca Decision”) (Rader*, Bryson & Linn), the Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware decision dismissing an infringement case for failure to state a claim, pursuant … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Holds That a Law of Nature Applied Using Known and Obvious Steps Is Not Patent Eligible

By Kevin Capps On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., with potentially far-reaching ramifications for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, particularly those developing diagnostic methods and assays.… Continue Reading
LexBlog

By scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse our website, you consent to our use of cookies as described in our Cookie and Advertising Policy. If you do not wish to accept cookies from our website, or would like to stop cookies being stored on your device in the future, you can find out more and adjust your preferences here.

Agree