Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In November of last year, the Federal Circuit narrowed the types of patents eligible for covered business method (CBM) review. In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., Case No. 15-1812, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016), the court found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) exceeded its authority in permitting CBM review for patents with claims that are “incidental to a financial activity” or “complementary to a financial activity.” The court’s decision narrowed what patents are eligible for CBM review, and provided some guidance for future cases seeking to determine whether a patent falls within the statutory definition of a CBM patent. This decision apparently raises the bar for CBM eligibility but does not resolve the existing split among PTAB panels in deciding the same.
By Richard Hung and Rachel Silverman Dolphin
In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s practice of instituting review on only a subset of an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s validity challenges.
By Athul K. Acharya
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group
Is inter partes review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.
By Aaron Cohn
Many Courts Have Determined that AdWords Bidding Alone Does Not Create Sufficient Consumer Confusion to Support Trademark Infringement Claims
As Internet searching continues its rapid migration to mobile and inadvertent infringement becomes inevitable, the courts are likely to see an increase of litigation in this area.
By Howard Shire and Adam B. Fischer
Federal Circuit Holds USPTO Can Defend PTAB Decision After Original Petitioner Drops Out
Federal Circuit Says Alice Not Intervening Change