Through protecting his brand and rights of publicity, Trump has accumulated more experience with IP than any other president. He owns more than 100 trademarks and has not shied from enforcing them. He’s also expressed concern about theft of trade secrets by China, referencing a study by the ITC that claims putting a stop to […]
In 2012 when Enfish sued Microsoft the District Court for the Central District of California found all claims invalid because they were directed to the abstract idea of “storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table” or “the concept of organizing information using tabular formats.” On appeal, Judge Todd Hughes of the United States […]
In re TC Heartland LLC is a case recently heard before the Federal Circuit and having to do with the venue statute for patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Specifically, this section indicates that there are two tests for proper venue in a patent case; venue is proper in (1) the district where the defendant […]
The Federal Circuit recently clarified its interpretation of a major Supreme Court case involving the standard of definiteness and when a patent may be determined indefinite. Previously the Federal Circuit has held that a claim is indefinite “only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’” In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. […]
The Federal Circuit recently clarified its interpretation of a major Supreme Court case involving direct infringement. In Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks the Federal Circuit issued a new opinion that said direct infringement of a method claim “exists when all of the steps of the claim are performed by or attributed to a single […]
In Intellectual Ventures v. JPMorgan, the Federal Circuit held that the mere filing of a petition for covered business method (CBM) patent review or post-grant review (PGR) under the AIA did not give it the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a decision on a motion to stay trial court proceedings. In this case, Intellectual […]
In Helferich Patent Licensing v. NYTimes and JCPenney, the Federal Circuit restricted the scope of the patent exhaustion doctrine by holding that the doctrine only protects “authorized acquirers” of a device against patent infringement claims instead of putting the device itself outside the scope of patent protection. In Helferich, the Helferich company owned patents on […]
In Pacing Tech v. Garmin, the Federal Circuit construed the claim preamble of an independent claim of a patent to be limiting for the dependent claims as well. The preamble of the claim, which referred to “a repetitive motion pacing system,” was found to be limiting because it “served as an antecedent basis” for limitations […]
In Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. 14-1114 – 2015-01-13, the Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision finding willful infringement. To find willful infringement, “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” In […]