Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those for improper venue. It also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions filed under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those filed under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) for improper venue. In re: HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit further closed a potential venue loophole created by TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514, and clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants. In re: HTC, at 1357.
*May exclude premium content
By Jonathan Moskin
In 2013, the PTO adopted a new policy under which any party commencing a de novo proceeding challenging a PTO decision would be responsible to pay a pro rata share of the salaries of the government attorneys working on the matter. On Dec. 11, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the PTO’s new interpretation of the Patent Act and held that the American Rule, a centuries-old principle under which each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, does apply to this statute.
By Mary A. Donovan
In a recent trademark cancellation case that has drawn “human interest” attention in the news, the plaintiff appealed an adverse decision to the Federal Circuit. The plaintiff was not “kidding” when he expressed his opinion that the registered mark, described as “goats on a roof of grass,” is demeaning to goats which, in turn, is offensive to him.
By Shaleen J. Patel
Do Not Pass Go? U.S. Supreme Court to Review Federal Circuit’s Finding of Justiciability
By Leslie Kushner
This article discusses the jurisprudence applied to determining patent eligibility of claims for diagnostic methods, and the expectation for changes in analysis of patent eligibility under §101 in the near future.