Posts in Guest Contributors

Justice Kagan stated as one primary factor that a District Court should put substantial weight on the reasonableness of the losing party’s position. The lower courts are in a good position to review and administer this factor, and it encourages parties with meritorious positions to advance them. Justice Kagan quite rightly stated that this was not the only factor, and that other previously articulated factors set forth in Fogerty also need to be evaluated. These include the “frivolousness [of the losing party’s position], [such party’s] motivation, objective unreasonableness, and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.” Fogerty at 534, n.19.

Recently, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Michelle Lee talked about releasing its APIs for patent data into the wild. What does this really mean? “The release of open APIs will be a huge boon for the IP and patent industries as it will draw on the crowd for building tools to improve the patent process,” says Kurt Collins, director of technology evangelism and partnerships, Buillt.io, a technology provider that enables organizations to create, integrate and scale applications. But the results of how open-source programmers will build these tools remain an open question.

At present, there is no statutory penalty for not providing the required Notice. However, if an employer fails to provide the required Notice, the employer cannot recover punitive damages or attorneys’ fees under the DTSA from an employee to whom the required Notice was not provided. (The employer could nevertheless obtain such punitive damages and attorneys’ fees under state law in nearly every state.) There may also be adverse consequences from a contractual perspective, or in a government audit, if the required Notice is not provided.

The Lumbee Tribe’s lawsuit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices for Anheuser-Busch’s use of the tribe’s HERITAGE, PRIDE & STRENGTH slogan and related logo design. According to the Complaint, Budweiser allegedly began using the tribe’s logo as early as 2004 and the HERITAGE, PRIDE & STRENGTH mark in 2015.

After a decade of disputes and lobbying, Ukraine has finally joined the countries with special IP courts or patent courts, namely the United Kingdom, the United States, China, Brazil, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Chile, France, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Spain and others… The reform provides for establishing the High Court on Intellectual Property Issues by autumn 2017 as a court of the first instance for copyright, trademark and patent disputes. Judicial decisions will be reviewed in the court of appeal within the chamber of the Supreme Court of Ukraine.

With the advent of enhancements in audio-video technology, Virtual-Reality (VR) has taken the world by storm. While VR has been enjoying most of the limelight, another similar technology – Augmented Reality (AR) is catching up fast. The patent landscape of VR is dominated by Sony followed by IBM, Samsung and Microsoft when it comes to total number of patented inventions. Microsoft is the leader in AR when it comes to the number of inventions filed as patents. It has 602 issued patents and published applications distributed among 151 inventions. Microsoft is followed by Samsung, Sony, LG and Qualcomm.

In light of Commil, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit… First, the Court concluded that Warsaw’s non-infringement theory was objectively unreasonable. Second, the Court concluded that NuVasive had presented sufficient evidence such that a jury could conclude that Warsaw knew it was inducing doctors to infringe NuVasive’s patent. In a concurrence, Judge Reyna expressed several concerns about the court’s reasoning in reaching this conclusion.

The Court agreed with Facebook in that these claim terms had no accepted meaning in the art, which meant that they cannot be construed broader than the specification disclosuses. The Court noted that the prosecution history also provided support for the district court’s construction. Further, because the other evidence was persuasive, there was no need to determine whether certain statements made by the patentees during prosecution rose to clear and unmistakable disclaimer, which is what Facebook argued in the alternative.

The Court found that “fractionation” referred only to distillation-based techniques. The specification’s use of the term “fractionation” controlled even if the definition was idiosyncratic. By that standard, the Court found that “fractionation” did not encompass solubility-based techniques. The specification identified the limits of “conventional fractionation” which were only limits of “conventional distillation,” and no other fractionation techniques known in the art were mentioned. Therefore, the specification equated “conventional fractionation” and “conventional distillation.” More broadly, this demonstrated that the specification equated the terms “fractionation” and “distillation.” This finding was further supported by the repeated and consistent use of the term “fractionation” in discussion of processes to separate mixtures by distillation.

The chance of a court tripling damages for patent infringement has significantly increased. The Supreme Court, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. and Stryker Corporation, et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al., granted district courts more discretion to award enhanced damages for willful patent infringement. However, the Court’s recent decision could have unintended consequences. The Supreme Court’s relaxation of the requirements for willful infringement could be a game changer for patent trolls.

We cannot know what biological killer will next emerge, when it will be born and where globalization’s winds will take it. But we do know that choking-off future private investment in future healthcare needs is foolhardy. And that is what will happen if the UN sanctions this finding. Investment hates uncertainty. And innovation dies without investment. The underdeveloped countries the Panel may seek to protect are often those that suffer first from epidemics like HIV /Aids, Ebola; and Zika. They will suffer first when the next biological scourge begins taking lives.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion with large ramifications for patent holders and potential infringers alike. Deciding the consolidated cases of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., the Court ruled that enhanced patent damages are appropriate to punish an infringer’s egregious, deliberate, or flagrant patent infringement. The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, which had provided an accused infringer with a complete defense to a charge of willfulness (and thus enhanced damages) if the infringer was able to construct, even years after the infringement began, a reasonable argument that the patent was invalid or not infringed, even where the infringer in fact had acted in bad faith. The Court also lowered the required burden of proof from clear and convincing evidence to a preponderance of the evidence. At the same time, it seems clear that mere negligence is not enough to establish entitlement to enhanced damages. While the Supreme Court referred to the 180 years of enhanced damages jurisprudence since the Patent Act of 1836 as setting forth the appropriate approach, it may take several years of additional litigation for predictability to emerge from today’s decision.

There has been a recent trend by insurance companies to change their policy forms and use language that provides substantially less coverage for these kinds of claims. Buyers of insurance might still see that the policies they’re buying have “Advertising Injury” coverage that includes “copyright” claims. Nevertheless, these subtle changes to the actual language in the forms (which few policyholders ever actually read before buying their policy) eliminate most, if not all, of the benefits of the coverage. Careful companies buying insurance and concerned about the risk of copyright infringement lawsuits need to watch out for these two changes that could leave them exposed to costly lawsuits.

Though much of today’s proposed patent legislation is controversial, removal of the Brulotte rule remains largely uncontested by analysts and has historically garnered support on both sides of the political divide. Replacing the Brulotte rule with the rule of reason from antitrust law would improve market efficiency and spur innovation by increasing the dissemination of intellectual property in the marketplace. To unlock those benefits, Congress must modernize how Federal Courts evaluate post-expiration patent royalty cases.

It has become more apparent in recent years that cybercriminals looking to profit from sensitive data are zoning in on law firms and their wealth of client information. Get ahead and prepare for clients asking questions about your security posture by closely examining your firm’s environment. Taking this preemptive action will help you detect gaps where confidential client data could be at risk, regardless of where and on what devices the information is stored. This assessment is easy to accomplish through the many proven services currently available in the market. Understanding where exactly your firm’s sensitive client data is being stored and how it’s being used is a critical first step to safeguarding that information.