-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Reflections on Potential Legislative Reform of the Patent Eligibility Standard
Nicole D. Galli
In the last five years, the courts have instead began wading into policy setting without the tools and resources to fully consider all the issues and various interests. Thus, the recent congressional efforts to consider these questions is welcome and, frankly, overdue.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
States Not Immune from PTAB Proceedings, Federal Circuit Rules
Scott Graham
Fifteen states had argued that they and their public universities shouldn’t have to expose their patents to validity review at the patent trial and appeal board.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
As Section 101 and the Progeny of Mayo and Myriad Continue to Wreak Havoc on Portfolios, How Is The Life Sciences Industry Fighting Back?
Wesley Overson, Otis Littlefield, Mat Swiderski, and Stephanie Blij
Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Mayo and Myriad, the Federal Circuit has expanded the holdings and invalidated more patents directed to biological discoveries. If the newly discovered correlations and properties of what is found in nature cannot be patented, what strategies for protection are left for companies doing biological research?
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Stanford Is Serving 11 Flavors of NPE
Scott Graham
Stanford Law School made available to the public a database of every patent lawsuit that’s been filed since 2007.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
The USPTO Brings New Guidance to the Section 101 Quandary
Susan M. Gerber and A. Patricia Campbell
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
USPTO Attempts to Provide Greater Clarity for Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Patent Eligibility Remains Uncertain — Especially for the Life Sciences — Even After Recent Federal Circuit Decisions and Efforts By the USPTO to Bring Clarity
Susan M. Gerber and A. Patricia Campbell
Part One of a Two-Part Article
Congress is empowered to create a patent system to promote the useful arts, and it has enacted laws to create a patent system that encourages innovation. Balancing that power, however, the courts in recent years have tried to rein in the scope of the patent right by limiting the scope of patent-eligible subject matter.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Use of Arbitration In Place of Inter Partes Review Proceedings
David L. Newman
An IPR might be more efficiently accomplished through arbitration than through a PTAB proceeding, so it should be considered by practitioners.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
IP News
Jeff Ginsberg and Hui Li
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Does Not Invalidate Section 156 Patent Term Extension
Federal Circuit Holds Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in IPR Context
Federal Circuit Reverses District Court Holding of Patent Ineligibility of Computer Security Patent
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
The PTAB’s New Claim Construction Standard: Will the Real Impact Please Stand Up
Justin Oliver
Beginning on Nov. 13, 2018, the USPTO will cease to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for newly-filed IPR, PGR, and CBM trials under the America Invents Act (AIA). Instead, the USPTO will begin “using the same claim construction standard that would be used to construe the claim in a civil action …."
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
The ‘New NAFTA’ and How It Will Affect Intellectual Property Law
Lawrence E. Ashery
The stage is set for the 24-year-old north American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to end and the U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), which has implications for intellectual property, to take its place.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
The High Bar for Challenging an Improperly Revived Patent
Scott D. Locke
The recent In Re Rembrandt Technologies decision is a reminder of both the potential consequence of a patent holder’s disingenuous assertion of unintentionality and the challenges that defendants face when raising the improper filing of a petition to revive a lapsed patent as a defense.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Non-Traditional Trademarks: The Elusiveness of Branding a Trend
Olivera Medenica
A look at several unique trademark cases where the plaintiff fashion brand proactively sought to invalidate a competitor’s non-traditional trademarks, an action which reflects a push back on increasingly aggressive litigation tactics by fashion brands seeking to blur the lines between a non-protectable fashion trend and a protectable trademark.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Patent Eligibility of User Interfaces
Lawrence H. Aaronson and James L. Korenchan
Advances in UI Design Can Provide Key Competitive Differentiation and Advantage, Which Makes Protecting Them Critically Important from a Business Perspective
Advances in UI design can also provide key competitive differentiation and advantage, helping to distinguish otherwise commoditized products and services such as computers, Web services, wearables, and appliances. Given this advantage, protecting advances in UI design can also be critically important from a business perspective.
Read More ›
-
Entertainment Law & Finance
How Disney Qualified for Design Patent for Marvel’s Captain America Shield
Lawrence E. Ashery
Fans of movies about fictional superheroes are probably familiar with Captain America and his miraculous shield. Recently, however, his shield showed up in a most unlikely place: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Foreign Lost Profits Recoverable for Patent Damages
Elizabeth B. Hagan
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(f)(2). The holding in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical rejects the Federal Circuit’s categorical exclusion of lost profits damages for foreign sales, and expands the potential for increased damages from domestic competitors operating in foreign markets.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Sending Out an SAS: Analyzing the SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu Decision
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.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Supreme Court Gives Inter Partes Review the Green Light
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.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
A Reasonable Royalty Rate Must Be Tied to Facts
Matthew Siegal
Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC
The rate of the reasonable royalty awarded to a successful patent plaintiff must be based on the facts of the case. A damages expert cannot merely pay lip service to the Georgia-Pacific factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
IP News
Howard Shire and Michael Block
Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents
Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily ‘Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional’ Under §101
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Federal Circuit Holds That PTAB’s Determination on Whether the One Year Time-Bar Is Triggered in Inter Partes Review Is Reviewable on Appeal
Jon E. Wright and Pauline M. Pelletier
On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant en banc decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom. In that decision, the Federal Circuit held that the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. §315(b) is reviewable on appeal, thus overturning a prior panel decision and opening the door for parties to challenge how the USPTO has interpreted and applied that statutory provision.
Read More ›
-
Entertainment Law & Finance
An IP Protection Primer for Entertainment Tech Startups
Dr. Dariush Adli
The tech-heavy entertainment industry is an active field for tech startup companies developing potential patents and trade secrets. But many cash conscious startups are forced to initially neglect protection planning for these intellectual property assets, instead allocating scarce resources to set up and initial operation costs. This article suggests some practical and economical steps for startups, especially those with tight finances, to protect what may become valuable patents and trade secrets.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
IP News
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Hui Li
Federal Circuit Affirms Finding That Rembrandt’s Patent Is Not Infringed by Apple’s Accused Products
District Court Transfers Case after Federal Circuit Ordered It to Reconsider Party’s Venue Objections In Light of TC Heartland
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Online Extra
After Years of Setbacks, Patent Owners Try to Turn Tide in Congress
Scott Graham
Patent owners have taken control of the patent reform debate in the 115th Congress, but it’s not clear yet who’s supposed to be listening.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Supreme Court Turns Back the Clock on Venue In Patent Infringement Litigation
Christopher Gaspar and Sean Hyberg
Although TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
How Much Did the Federal Circuit Narrow Eligibility for Covered Business Method Review?
Diek Van Nort and Matthew Kreeger
In November of last year, the Federal Circuit narrowed the types of patents eligible for covered business method review in Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc. The court's decision narrowed what patents are eligible for CBM review, and provided some guidance for future cases.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Amending Patent Claims in Post-Grant Trial Proceedings
Cynthia Lambert Hardman
What You Need to Know
The America Invents Act gave patent owners the right to move to amend their patent claims. To date, however, this right has been more illusory than real. Given their dismal success rate so far, many hope that the tide will turn in favor of granting more motions to amend.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Joint Infringement Post-Akamai: Understanding the Impact on Prosecution and Litigation Strategies
Matthew Becker, Norman F. Hainer Jr. and David K. Ludwig
This two-part article aims to deconstruct the new joint infringement standard, provide insight into how the standard might be interpreted and provide practice tips for prosecution and litigation. Part 1 chronicles the Akamai cases that ultimately resulted in a new standard for joint infringement and explores the potential interpretations of that standard.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Online Extra
Apple Loses to Samsung in Supreme Court Design Patent Case
Tony Mauro
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Samsung Electronics on Dec. 6 in its titanic patent dispute with Apple Inc. over design features copied from Apple iPhones.
Read More ›
-
The Intellectual Property Strategist
Expanded Means-Plus-Function Analysis Presents New Opportunities and Challenges
Joshua D. Curry and Kate E. Hart
The Federal Circuit's en banc decision in Williamson v. Citrix Online expanded the potential application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, making it more likely that functional claim language will be construed as a means-plus-function limitation even in the absence of the word "means." This article discusses recent decisions applying Williamson and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.
Read More ›
