Features
Athul K. Acharya
<b><i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</b></i><p>Is <i>inter partes</i> review of a patent grant compatible with Article III and the Seventh Amendment? That was the question presented in <i>Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group</i> and the U.S. Supreme Court answered in the affirmative.
Features
Matthew Siegal
<b><i>Exmark Manufacturing Company Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Products Group, LLC</b></i><p>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 <i>Georgia-Pacific</i> factors and then “pluck” a royalty rate from thin air.
Columns & Departments
Howard Shire
&
Michael Block
Claim Preclusion Requires Analysis that Claims in Newly Asserted Patents are Patently Indistinct from Claims in Previously Adjudicated Patents<br>Claim Elements Taught by Prior Art for Purposes of Novelty and Obviousness are not Necessarily 'Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional' Under §101
Features
Jon E. Wright
&
Pauline M. Pelletier
On Jan. 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its significant <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom.</i> 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.
Features
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.
Columns & Departments
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Hui Li
Federal Circuit Affirms Finding That Rembrandt's Patent Is Not Infringed by Apple's Accused Products<br>District Court Transfers Case after Federal Circuit Ordered It to Reconsider Party's Venue Objections In Light of <i>TC Heartland</i><brPTAB Decision Invalidating AIP Internet Network Patent Affirmed on Appeal
Features
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.
Features
Christopher Gaspar
&
Sean Hyberg
Although <i>TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods</i> 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.
Features
Diek Van Nort
&
Matthew Kreeger
In November of last year, the Federal Circuit narrowed the types of patents eligible for covered business method review in <i>Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc.</i> The court's decision narrowed what patents are eligible for CBM review, and provided some guidance for future cases.
Features
Cynthia Lambert Hardman
<b><i>What You Need to Know</i></b><br>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.
