Marine Polymer Technologies v. Hemcon
It turns out that used is better than new for patent holders contesting a claim of intervening rights after patent reexamination. In Marine Polymer Technologies v. Hemcon, a 6-4 en banc Federal Circuit concluded that intervening rights for an accused infringer apply only when a patent holder actually changes claim language during re-examination-even if arguments made during the reexam change the scope...
Read More...
Digital-Vending Serv. Int’l, LLC v. Univ. of Phoenix
Add the Federal Circuit to the list of places with a bleak outlook for new construction-especially for those whose proposed development is a new claim construction argument on appeal. In Digital-Vending Services International, LLC v. University of Phoenix , the patent holder argued that it could seek a claim construction different from what it had proposed below because the district court had "construed...
Read More...
Dealertrack, Inc. v. David L. Huber
Patent litigators who spend their time hooking up words and phrases and clauses should R-E-A-D Dealertrack, Inc. v. David L. Huber . In Dealertrack, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit considered the validity of three patents covering a computer-aided method and system for processing car loan applications. The Dealertrack majority invalidated two of three patents, finding one invalid for indefiniteness...
Read More...
TianRui Group Co. Ltd. v. ITC
When it comes to the international theft of domestic trade secrets, it seemed the answer to the mystery lay in where, not whodunit. But, in TianRui Group Co. Ltd. v. ITC , a divided panel of the Federal Circuit made a red herring out of the location of trade secret misappropriation. The panel's majority held that, as long as a trade secret misappropriation threatens to destroy or substantially...
Read More...
Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp.
Though time's up on the presumption of irreparable harm for patent holders seeking injunctive relief following a jury finding of validity and infringement, the clock hasn't stopped on permanent injunctions for patent infringement. In Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Mfg. Corp. , the Federal Circuit confirmed that eBay "jettisoned" the presumption of irreparable harm as it applies to requests...
Read More...
Atlantic Research Systems, Inc. v. Troy
Patent holders with a vulnerable written description flank may want to maneuver a trade secret claim into their IP arsenal. In Atlantic Research Systems, Inc. v. Troy , the patent holder claimed infringement of a patent covering an improved hand guard system for military rifles. The patent holder also alternatively argued that the infringing product was the result of a misappropriation of a trade secret...
Read More...
Ultramercial v. Hulu
Inventors who want their process patents to be all they can be might just find they're in good hands after the Federal Circuit's decision in Ultramercial v. Hulu . In Ultramercial, the Federal Circuit let their fingers do the walking (again) on the question of subject matter eligibility under § 101. Though the Ultramercial court can't yet name everything that's in § 101 patentability's...
Read More...
Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.
The patent pain felt by some process method inventors might not be psychosomatic. In Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions , Inc. , the Federal Circuit held that an invention is not patent-eligible under § 101 if it claims a method that can be entirely performed in the human mind. Those kind of mental processes are a sub-category of abstract ideas and abstract ideas have long been one of the exceptions...
Read More...
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Pass the Red Dye No. 2. The Federal Circuit has tweaked the recipe for determining the patentability of DNA. According to a divided panel in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc . , a claimed DNA molecule is patentable when it presents a distinct chemical identity from the molecule as it exists in nature. Myriad offers guidance for determining when DNA discoveries become patentable...
Read More...
Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
Patent law's order of operations remains the same. In Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bayh-Dole Act does not change patent law's basic equation that inventors own their inventions until otherwise assigned. The Bayh-Dole Act protects government investments in federally sponsored research. Stanford had argued that Bayh-Dole also works...
Read More...
Microsoft Corp . v. i4i Limited Partnership
Combatants on patent law's frontlines can stand down. The Supreme Court has issued its long awaited opinion in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership and, despite wide-spread speculation that the Court might torpedo patent litigation's standards of proof, the rules of engagement remain the same. Rejecting the campaign waged by Microsoft, a unanimous Court held that the presumption of validity...
Read More...
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton
Regime change has come to the patent defense of inequitable conduct. Protesting the plague-like effect the doctrine has had on courts and the entire patent system, a 6-1-4 en banc Federal Circuit has brought a sweeping reformation to the standards for challenging a patent on inequitable conduct grounds. In an overthrow of the current system, the majority in Therasense v. Becton decreed that heightened...
Read More...
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.; Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus
There's no dancing around it: A party's duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation becomes "reasonably foreseeable." Under this standard, destruction of evidence constitutes spoliation if it occurs after the totality of circumstances make litigation objectively foreseeable. In the companion decisions Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus...
Read More...
Radio Systems Corp. v. Accession, Inc.
Looking for a declaratory judgment action that can hunt? The latest trail from the Federal Circuit shows us that to sniff out the necessary jurisdiction, you'll need more than a patentee trying to sell or license his patent in the proposed forum state. In Radio Systems Corp. v. Accession, Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that a patentee's contacts must specifically relate to attempts to...
Read More...
On April 18, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership . At issue is the appropriate burden of proving invalidity-clear and convincing or a preponderance of evidence. The following note summarizes...
On April 18, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership . At issue is the appropriate burden of proving invalidity-clear and convincing or a preponderance of evidence. The following note summarizes the oral argument. I. Background The specific issue in front of the Court is the appropriate interpretation of Title 35, Section 282 of the United...
Read More...
More Posts
Next page »
Atlanta
404-760-3800
One Atlantic Center
1201 W. Peachtree St, Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30309
Boston
617-859-2718
800 Boylston Street
25th Floor, Prudential Tower
Boston, MA 02199
Los Angeles
310-552-0130
2049 Century Park East
Suite 3400
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Minneapolis
612-349-8435
800 LaSalle Avenue
2800 LaSalle Plaza
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Naples
239-213-1962
711 5th Avenue South
Suite 201
Naples, FL 34102
New York
212-980-7401
601 Lexington Avenue
Suite 3400
New York, NY 10022