In two recent opinions, the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB”) invalidation of 42 claims across two patents because of the PTAB’s “violat[ion] of a patent owner’s procedural rights” under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). In both opinions, the CAFC stated that “the APA imposes
In this case, the defendants filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings aimed at four patents on the ground that all are directed to abstract ideas. As discussed below, the Western District of Washington, (“The Court”) granted the motion as to two of the patents and provided
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held a patent directed to delivering targeted advertising via bypassing mobile devices’ security systems was directed to an abstract idea, and thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101. This decision reinforces that neither unclaimed functionalities, nor vague, results-centric descriptions give rise to
In the fiercely contested case of Google v. Oracle, theSupreme Court held that Google’s copying of 11,500 lines of code from Sun Microsystems’ Java Application Programming Interface (“API”) to allow software developers to leverage their accrued Java coding skills on Android constituted fair use as a matter of law. Case
Invalidating claims of a patent directed to system architecture combining imaging sensors with timing and control circuits, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) clarified the landscape of state-of-the-art developments at pixel scale. In a seventy-seven page final written decision, the PTAB determined five claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,565
On appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the PTAB”) and the Federal Circuit (“the CAFC”), the Supreme Court (“the Court”) held that unreviewable Administrative Patent Judge (“APJ”) rulings are inconsistent with the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and, thus, rendered unenforceable any statutory restrictions preventing the Director of
On June 11, 2021, The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “CAFC”) upheld the Northern District of California’s grant of Apple’s and Samsung’s (collectively, the “Defendants”) Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Yanbin Yu and Zhongxuan Zhang’s (collectively, the “Patent Owners”) patent infringement action. The patent in suit,
No luck this week for food-related marks. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (“District Court”) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) each refused registration of marks “COOKINPELLETS.COM” and “PRETZEL CRISPS,” respectively. Each proceeding considered the “primary significance” of the mark to the
Before the court, in this case concerning design patent infringement, was a motion in limine to preclude Defendants’ witnesses from testifying about expense deductions from net profits that are not tied specifically to the sales of the products at issue. In its decision, the court denied the motion, stating that
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 a Stanford University patent application (Application No. 13/445,925) (“the ’925 Application”) covering improvements to a method for analyzing genetic data because its innovation was to a mathematical algorithm rather than of a technological nature.
© 2021 Irwin IP LLC. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer | Sitemap | Cookie Policy
Attorney Advertising. The material and information contained on these pages and on any pages linked from these pages are intended to provide general information only and not legal advice. You should consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction before relying upon any of the information presented here. The acts of sending email to this website or viewing information from this website do not create an attorney-client relationship. The listing of verdicts, settlements, and other case results is not a guarantee or prediction of the outcome of any other claims.