Posts in Guest Contributors

The solution to this intractable puzzle was provided by Santa in the Patent, which describes a grid of enormous, land-based wind turbines running back and forth between the east and west coasts of the United States, arranged alternately parallel and perpendicular to the equator. This grid, claims the Patent, propels a sled that contains an assembly of wind-catching parachutes and, as a backup propulsion system, a team of stimulated ruminants who respond to their catchy Teutonic names. The sled itself is manned by a right jolly old elf who is prevented from being blown off by a sophisticated harnessing process adapted from the airline industry and more fully described in the Patent.

It is inappropriate for a trial court to discount material expert testimony so as to weigh the evidence in favor of a party seeking summary judgment. The presence of a genuine dispute precludes summary judgment in such cases. … Failure to disclose arguments concerning claims of a different scope in a different patent application was not inequitable conduct when differences were apparent to the Examiner.

Tile Tech argued that a default judgment was not appropriate because the district court did not find that Tile Tech acted in bad faith. However, the Court identified the full test for default, in the Ninth Circuit, as “willfulness, bad faith, or fault.” Tile Tech failed to present evidence that its dilatory actions were not its fault, i.e. outside of its attorney’s control. Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment… The Court also found the requirement to surrender “any mold, or other device, by which any [component] utilized with the [patent] was made” an acceptable means of preventing future infringement.

The Court held that remand was improper. Generally, remand is proper where the governing legal standards change during appeal. However, the Court found that the change in legal standard would not affect the district court’s order because Medgraph failed to present a case of direct infringement even under the broader theory of attribution in Akamai V.

In a dilution claim, a trademark owner asserts that their famous mark is entitled to protection from use that causes harm to the mark’s reputation or distinctiveness. In effect, the trademark owner is saying that the mark is so famous that even use in connection with unrelated goods or services would result in an affiliation with its business and a resulting decrease in the value of the mark. For example, you are inviting a dilution claim if you begin selling McDonalds Cars or Chevy Hamburgers. But recent dismissals of trademark dilution claims at the motion to dismiss stage highlight that plaintiffs must be prepared to show early on that their mark is a “household name” before they can pursue their claims. These decisions also show that defendants are more often turning to this early path to attack an exaggerated claim to fame.

In Europe and the US, patentability depends on a showing of inventiveness that is based on similar legal requirements but practice differs substantially and the resulting patent quality varies… At the USPTO, patent applications are rejected for obviousness (35 USC §103) already in a first Office Action by an examiner and his/her supervisor… Over in Europe the examination of inventive step begins with an opinion following which the applicant is invited to comment/amend.

When the America Invents Act (AIA) was being formulated, from about 2005 – 2011, nothing was more subject to change bill-to-bill than the proposed “1st look” and “2nd look” procedures for issued US patents. Should the U.S. have a regular opposition procedure, or should existing inter partes reexam just be tweaked? The AIA final result is the universally dis-liked post grant troika known as PGR, IPR, and CBM… For today I will confine my remarks (and associated fixes) to three truly bad ideas that in practice have played out as particularly egregious. More specifically: (1) the lack of standing required for inter partes review (IPR) challenges; (2) the lack of any real ability to amend claims during a post grant proceeding; and (3) the trivially low threshold (i.e., reasonable likelihood) that initiates an IPR.

So why is the high school in my little blue collar town using Google Classroom and not one of these companies that pitched to Dell in the 1990’s? I think the answer lies in how the government is picking the winners and losers of the internet… eLearning technology is the type of technology that is likely to be invalid as an abstract idea under Alice. After all, education has been around for centuries and just adding a computer to it does not make the system patent eligible, or so a few misguided federal judges have decided.

Interactions between patent examiners and patent practitioners are often tense. At worst, these interactions can be an exercise in restraint with both parties thinly veiling their disdain for one another. This adversarial approach can stall prosecution and run adverse to the practitioner’s purpose – i.e., to obtain the best patent claim scope possible for his or her client. Patent practitioners thus could benefit in many instances by having a better understanding of an examiner’s expectations and approaching prosecution with a mind toward working with the examiner instead of against the examiner. A conversation with an Examiner in a mechanical art unit provided the following tips for how practitioners may expedite the examination process by working (to the extent possible) within the examiner’s expectations.

It is a ubiquitous concept that U.S. IP rights cannot extend beyond the territorial borders of the U.S. But the IP world may be in for a change. If the Supreme Court upholds the Federal Circuits decision in Life Technologies Corporation, et al. v. Promega Corporation (No. 14–1538) currently pending before the Supreme Court, it will change the way companies engage in domestic and international business. The Supreme Court is specifically set to consider if supplying a component to a foreign manufacturer of a patented product creates liability under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1).

Almost 100% of the pre-election patent reform lobbying efforts were focused on the campaign, which did not prevail and thus on the morning of November 9 the patent community woke up to being well behind in getting a rapport established with the incoming administration. Don’t be fooled by the seductive image of a drained swamp, those of us in the pro-patent community will need to be pro-active in our engagement with Washington if we want patent reforms that meet our expectations.

We know that not only are copyrights grounded in the constitution, but core copyright industries contribute approximately $1.2 trillion to the U.S. economy annually, and employ over 5.5 million American workers. At the same time, however, we are acutely aware that, unfortunately, copyright theft online is rampant, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has increasingly become ill equipped to address even flagrant, willful copyright infringement in the digital world. What we don’t know, however, is how President-Elect Trump and the Trump Administration will view copyright issues, and whether pro-creator copyright reforms will be on the President’s agenda come January 20, 2017. We can, however, make some educated guesses based on Trump’s entertainment industry ties, his potential Supreme Court nominees, and those he is surrounding himself with on his Transition Team and in a Trump Administration that is increasingly taking shape.

The Federal Circuit vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) cancellation of two JobDiva service mark registrations—one in whole and the other in part—and remanded for further consideration. As the Court pointed out in its opinion, JobDiva could have avoided the issues in this case by initially registering “marks to identify both software and services performed by software.” Practitioners should take care to register a mark for all goods and services for which the mark may be used.

NuVasive owns a patent relating to spinal fusion implants. Medtronic petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) to institute an inter partes review challenging the validity of NuVasive’s patent over several references. The Board instituted the IPR and found the challenged claims obvious over a combination of references.

A district court does not have authority to issue an injunction against a party not adjudicated to be liable for infringement in the underlying case unless that party aided or abetted the liable party in the infringement, or the non-liable party is legally identified with the liable party through privity or some other means. This determination requires specific findings of fact about the parties.