Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 24, 2025, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Moore, Stoll, and Cunningham issued a precedential opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, in In re Riggs, No. 2022-1945 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 24, 2025). Appellants in Riggs are the named inventors listed on U.S. Patent Application No. 11/005,678 (the 678 Application). Riggs, slip op. at 2. They appealed, among other rulings, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that a published patent application qualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(1). Id. (The inventor-appellants raised three issues on appeal, one of which was an issue preclusion matter. Riggs, slip op. at 7-10. That issue is not discussed here.) The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, finding that the Board did an incomplete analysis in determining whether the published application did, in fact, qualify as prior art under §102(e). Id.
During prosecution of the 678 Application, the examiner rejected certain claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(e)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0049622 A1 (Lettich), which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/200,035 (the Lettich Provisional). Id. at 5. Lettich qualifies as prior art to the claims of the 678 Application only if it is entitled to the priority date of the Lettich Provisional. See, id. at 10. The Board reasoned that because the Lettich Provisional provides adequate support for claim 1 of Lettich, Lettich is prior art against the claims of the 678 Application. Id. at 11. The Board then sustained the examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections. Id. at 2.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.