Tag Archives: Patents

Continuation Patent Applications: 10 Reasons You Should Consider Filing

A single light bulb standing out among the group.If you’ve filed for patents in any industry – be it biotech, high tech, manufacturing, or another sector altogether – you’ve likely been faced with a decision on whether to file a “continuation” application at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In simple terms, a “continuation” application is a new patent application allowing one … Continue Reading

Planning to Request Discovery for a European Patent Office Proceeding? Not So Fast, Rules the District of Massachusetts

The Hon. F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts recently denied a petitioner’s request under 28 USC § 1782 to take discovery related to patent inventorship in connection with an Opposition proceeding pending before the European Patent Office (EPO). The court, in exercising its discretion under the U.S. … Continue Reading

PTAB Procedural Reform Initiative: Will the PTAB Become More Patent-Friendly?

Changes may be coming to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced recently that it is launching an initiative to reform PTAB proceeding rules. The announcement stated that the USPTO will use nearly five years of historical data and user experiences to improve PTAB trials. In … Continue Reading

Oversimplifying Patent Claims Dooms Government’s Case in Federal Circuit Decision

motionDefendants in patent litigation frequently mount an invalidity defense under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by arguing that asserted claims are directed to abstract ideas, which are not eligible for patent protection under the first step of the Alice[1] test. Often, these defendants fail to account for significant aspects of the asserted claims, resulting in an … Continue Reading

TC Heartland v. Kraft: The Supreme Court Asks Tough Questions, Doesn’t Tip Its Hand After Oral Argument

Blue folder with the label Patent LawOn March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft, a case that centers on where patent infringement lawsuits can be filed. Key Takeaways If the Supreme Court sides with TC Heartland, patent infringement hotbeds like the Eastern District of Texas would likely see a drastic reduction in filings … Continue Reading

The Supreme Court Strikes Down Laches as a Defense to Patent Infringement

Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, in which it held that laches cannot be used as a defense to a claim of patent infringement. The opinion had been anticipated ever since the Court’s decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014) … Continue Reading

Will the Supreme Court Reform Patent Venue Law in TC Heartland v. Kraft?

United States Supreme Court in Washington D.C.Q: Why is the technology industry following TC Heartland v. Kraft so closely? Paul Cronin: The Supreme Court recently agreed to take up TC Heartland, a case that will address the issue of where patent infringement lawsuits can be filed. The tech industry wants the Supreme Court to end the practice of “forum shopping,” or … Continue Reading

5 Must-Ask IP Due Diligence Questions in Corporate Transactions

When would a company undergo intellectual property due diligence? Konstantin Linnik: Any corporate transaction involving IP assets necessitates diligence: merger, acquisition, IPO, investment (such as a venture capital financing), in-license, partnering, co-development, or distribution agreements. The buyer who is evaluating the Target could be a licensee, business partner, investor, banker, or underwriter. IP due diligence … Continue Reading

Phigenix v. ImmunoGen: IPR Challenger May Lack Standing to Appeal to Federal Circuit

The America Invents Act (AIA) established a number of procedures for challenging a granted patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While virtually anyone can challenge a patent using these procedures, not everyone has standing to appeal if the challenge does not go their way. This issue was highlighted recently in a precedential … Continue Reading

The District of Massachusetts Sheds Light on Halo’s New Standard for Willfulness and Enhanced Damages in Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co., Ltd.

Since the Supreme Court decision in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics came down earlier this year (as previously discussed here), district courts across the country have been grappling with the high court’s new standard for determining willful infringement and awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In the District of Massachusetts, only one case to date has … Continue Reading

Amdocs v. Openet: Federal Circuit Finds Network Patents Eligible Under § 101

The Federal Circuit this month issued another decision finding claims to a computer-implemented invention to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nov. 1, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to a distributed architecture for collecting and processing computer network data close to … Continue Reading

USPTO Provides Guidance to Examiners on Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Relating to Patent Eligibility of Software Claims

Binary code backgroundOver the past six years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions—Bilski, Mayo, Myriad, and Alice—that have significantly impacted patent eligibility law, particularly in the areas of software and biotechnology. On November 2, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a memorandum to patent examiners, discussing two recently-issued Federal … Continue Reading

McRO v. Bandai: Latest Federal Circuit § 101 Decision Breathes New Life into Software Patents

The Federal Circuit last week handed down the latest in a series of decisions finding computer-implemented inventions to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to software for automatically animating lip synchronization … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Ruling Loosens Standard for Awarding Enhanced Damages

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., once again changing patent law by loosening the standard by which district courts may award enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In so doing, the Court discarded the two-part test set forth by the Court … Continue Reading

Recognicorp v. Nintendo: Invalidating software claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington held, in Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., et al, that claims to certain methods and systems for encoding/decoding image data are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Recognicorp is an illustrative example of the use of preliminary motion practice to dispose of patent … Continue Reading
LexBlog