Patents

Subscribe to Patents

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

A divided Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, upheld a lower court’s finding that the claims of US Patent No. 7,774,911 ineligible for patenting under Section 101 because the claims are directed to a law of nature. The ‘911 patent claims relate to methods of manufacturing vehicle driveshaft assemblies.
Continue Reading Today’s Special: Validity Goulash – Serving Up 101 in the Mechanical Arts

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 standing to assert the patent. In the second case, the Board rejected the petitioner’s argument that the service of the complaint must effect personal jurisdiction. Both case results stem from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Click-to-Call Technologies, L.P. v. Ingenio, Inc., where the court held that the plain and unambiguous meaning of Section 315(b)’s time bar merely requires the service of a complaint allege patent infringement, and thus leaves little room for finding exceptions to the time bar’s application. …
Continue Reading Perils of Waiting: PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel Designates Two More Decisions Rejecting 315(b) Arguments Regarding Time Bars

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.  The case marks only the second time the Federal Circuit has found software-related claims eligible for patent protection since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Finds Software-Related Claims Patent Eligible in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.

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 years pass. Other times, the patent owner starts a dialogue, only to let it trail off without resolution. Occasionally, a second letter (or a patent lawsuit) comes many years after the patent owner first learned of its potential claim for patent infringement. Does the passage of time mean that the accused infringer is safe?…

Continue Reading High Court Takes on Laches and Patents

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. In November 2010, Microsoft filed a breach of contract suit, alleging Motorola breached its obligation to license its SEP at a RAND rate.…

Continue Reading An Unreasonable Royalty Rate is No Gaming Matter

On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published interim final rules revising several patent term adjustment (PTA) provisions in view of the AIA Technical Corrections Act of January 14, 2013. 78 Fed. Reg. 19416. The USPTO’s interim final rules became effective on April 1, 2013, and apply to any patent granted on or after January 14, 2013. Applications pending as of January 14, 2013 are therefore subject to the new rules.…

Continue Reading Things to Know About the Latest Final Interim Rules to Patent Term Adjustment

By Michael Febbo and Daniel Yannuzzi

On September 25, 2012, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada ruled that the common ownership requirements of a terminal disclaimer were not met when the subject patent and its predecessor patent were owned by different wholly owned subsidiaries of a parent company. Takeaways from the case include:

  • When asserting a patent that is subject to a terminal disclaimer, a single entity must own both the disclaimed patent and the predecessor patent – ownership of the patents cannot be divided between subsidiary companies.
  • Following an example set forth in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) does not provide a safe harbor regarding common ownership.
  • The case highlights the importance of maintaining thorough patent records, especially for entities that divide patent ownership between subsidiaries.

…
Continue Reading District Court Draws Line on Terminal Disclaimers for IP Owned by Subsidiaries