Posts in Guest Contributors

When you think of autonomous cars or driverless vehicles, you probably don’t associate them with cloud computing and data analytics. However, that’s exactly the technology that makes autonomy possible, at least when it comes to modern mechanics… A vehicle that has to wait for commands from a cloud system is especially vulnerable.

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai V broadened the circumstances in which the actions of others may be attributed to a single actor to support liability for direct infringement. Here, a patent that claims a method of administering treatment can be directly infringed if a physician performs some of the claimed steps and the patient performs the other steps under the physician’s direction and control. The infringement is induced by the drug manufacturer when it unambiguously encourages the performance of the infringing steps, as in its labeling for the drug.

A PCT application is an international application that is filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which currently has 151 contracting states. A PCT application is filed with an appropriate Receiving Office within 12 months from the date of first filing (where applicable). The main advantage of a PCT application is that an applicant generally gets 30/31 months from the date of first filing to file individual National Phase applications in jurisdictions of interest. However, one must consider the costs associated with the PCT Process.

The ‘156 patent discloses methods of treating and/or preventing metabolic diseases, particularly diabetes, in patients for whom metformin therapy is inappropriate due to intolerability or contraindication against metformin, e.g., renal disease, metabolic acidosis, congestive heart failure. Defendants alleged that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because the claims recite a natural law. Plaintiffs argued claims of the ’156 patent are directed towards methods of treating the targeted patient population with metabolic diseases using non-naturally existing DPP-IV inhibitors, which alter the natural state of the body in a new and useful way, and hence do not fall within the natural phenomena exception… Superficially, this decision may appear to be consistent with Mayo – methods of treatment claims that manipulate natural biological processes are considered to be directed to patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. However… it is not perfectly clear that the treatment claims of the patent-at-issue are directed to a law of nature or an abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an active practical application of a compound for treatment… The decision also appears at odds with the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.

If you ask ten different people, you will probably get ten different answers. In fact, fewer than half of the European Union’s 28 member states actually have a clear legal definition at all for a trade secret. It’s no surprise, therefore, that the ways in which trade secrets are defined and treated varies considerably between the EU’s member states. These inconsistencies make it tricky for companies to do business in the EU. Somewhat belatedly, the EU has recognized the problems posed and, in order to address them, it has taken the step of harmonizing and upgrading the existing legal landscape by passing the Trade Secrets Directive.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Southern District Court of New York in Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., a trademark infringement case in which summary judgment was granted to defendant My Other Bag (MOB) on the basis that their product – a cheap canvas bag that features a cartoonish depiction of plaintiff Louis Vuitton’s (LV) marks – satisfies the elements of a parody defense and is therefore unlikely to cause confusion despite surface-level similarities…. The outcome of the case in favor of the defendant represents a big win for defendants making use of the parody defense to target a famous trademark-holder.

We just don’t need another lawyer or lobbyist to run the USPTO. We need more this time. We need someone from the grassroots who understands the very real hurdles facing America’s most innovative segment. Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) comes to mind. He has built a company based on his patents and is a strong advocate for strong patents for startups. Hans Høeg, Congressman Massie’s Chief of Staff, also comes to mind. He is an inventor with a couple dozen patents and a startup built on patents. He also has four years navigating Congress and the government in his role working for Massie. He understands how patents work at the grassroots level, he understands the processes of the USPTO, he is experienced in patent law and licensing, and he understands how to navigate politically.

A copyright infringement battle of intergalactic proportions between Plaintiffs CBS and Paramount Pictures, and the company (along with its principal Alec Peters) looking to produce the crowdfunded Star Trek fan film Axanar (“Defendants”) is heating up. The parties have filed numerous motions in the past month, and the Court’s recent ruling on the parties’ motions for summary judgment means the case is inching closer and closer to its January 31 trial date… The Court then concluded that the “Axanar Works have objective substantial similarity to the Star Trek Copyrighted Works,” and therefore it “leaves the question of subjective substantial similarity to the jury.”

Perhaps when the Senate Banking Committee convenes to consider the nomination of Wall Street attorney Jay Clayton as the new head of the Securities and Exchange Commission they should ask about efficient infringement and the infringe at will culture. What is your position, Mr. Clayton, on the legal obligation of a public company to shareholders? Should publicly traded companies inform shareholders that patent assets are worthless, or at least worth less, given the legal and regulatory climate in America? Should publicly traded companies systematically infringe and ignore all patent rights? Should publicly traded companies be using billions in shareholder monies to aggressively collect patent assets while they are simultaneously using millions to lobby against the viability of patents? What exactly do shareholders have a right to know?

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral argument in Lee v. Tam for January 18… The genesis of the case is a Portland, Oregon all-Asian-American band called The Slants, founded by petitioner Simon Shiao Tam. An application for trademark was made and the USPTO said “NO” on the basis that “The Slants” is a highly disparaging term and therefore must be denied registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act… The cultural and societal value of the free flow of speech trumps government regulation. The Supreme Court should uphold the Constitution and confirm the importance of robust political debate, cultural discourse, and the right to use ANY words as part of a personal identity.

On January 5, 2017, the District of Delaware issued its long-awaited decision in the patent dispute pending between Amgen and Regeneron wherein the Court granted Amgen’s request for a permanent injunction against Regeneron’s new PCSK9-inhibitor cholesterol drug. Both Amgen and Regeneron each independently spent billions of dollars over the past decade-plus developing a new class of cholesterol drug. The drug itself comprises an antibody that binds to PCSK9 proteins… Whereas Regeneron managed to be the first to market, Amgen succeeded in getting to the Patent Office first. Amgen originally sued Regeneron, along with Sanofi, its European partner, in October 2014. Amgen asserted three patents directed to antibodies that bind to PCSK9. Over the next month, Amgen commenced additional lawsuits as new patents issued from the Patent Office. The cases were eventually consolidated, but Amgen eventually went to trial against Regeneron on only two of the originally asserted patents.

In creating a privacy and security plan, IOT companies should be mindful of regulatory enforcement for failure to fully comply with their own advertised practices. For example, companies should honor representations made to consumers regarding privacy and security practices, or risk regulatory scrutiny. If not, the FTC may bring an enforcement action, which it did against IOT company, TRENDnet, Inc. According to the FTC, TRENDnet failed to implement reasonable security practices, monitor security vulnerability reports from third parties, test and review potential security vulnerabilities, and implement reasonable guidance for its employees, and thus was in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). The case settled, and the terms of the settlement prohibited TRENDnet from misrepresenting its privacy and security practices and required it to establish a comprehensive security risk program.

The equitable defense of laches has been a useful tool for defendants in intellectual property litigation for over a hundred years, but a recent case in the U.S. Supreme Court could potentially remove the defense in patent infringement cases. In SCA Hygiene Products AB v. First Quality Baby Products LLC, the Supreme Court must decide whether the doctrine of laches bars patent infringement claims filed within the six-year statutory limitation period established under 35 U.S.C. § 286 of the Patent Act… Based on oral arguments, it is expected the Court will reverse the Federal Circuit’s decision and conclude that laches do not apply to patent infringement cases brought within the six-year damages period.

For patent holders in design patent infringement cases, having multiple component design patents for any given product will help maximize the potential damage award. A multiple design patent strategy is now more important than ever. Given the ease with which design patents are obtained and the relative inexpensive cost associated with obtaining a design patent (at least when compared to the cost of obtaining a utility patent) innovators who must rely on design patent protection will almost certainly need to more strategically acquire design patents as part of a truly robust design patent portfolio building strategy.

The Court upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs, finding ample support in the record for Walker’s vexatious conduct, and no legitimate reason for Walker to continue litigating after the Agreement. Further, Walker’s arguments on appeal mischaracterized clear authority on the courts’ ability to award attorneys’ fees. The Court also sanctioned Walker and his attorneys for pursuing a frivolous appeal and awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.