Posts in Guest Contributors

Reversing the panel en banc, the Federal Circuit found that the ITC does have jurisdiction to issue an exclusion order predicated on induced infringement. Under Chevron step two, the Court deemed that the ITC’s interpretation of Section 337 was reasonable because it was “consistent with the statutory text, policy, and legislative history of Section 337,” as “Section 337 contemplates that infringement may occur after importation.” Further, the panel’s interpretation of Section 337 would unnecessarily “eliminate relief for the unfair trade act and induced infringement” by allowing foreign entities “to circumvent Section 337 by importing articles in a state requiring post-importation combination or modification before direct infringement could be shown.”

The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB, noting that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s findings. Where, as here, the disputed term is highly descriptive, the TTAB acted within its discretion in refusing to accept evidence of five years’ use as prima facie evidence of distinctiveness.

JVC is a member of two licensing pools for optical disc technology, one for DVD and one for Blu-ray. The asserted patents are included in both pools. The district court adopted JVC’s position that the asserted patents are essential to the licensed DVD and Blu-ray optical discs. Given the patent pool and licensing program, which covers any and all optical disc structures and uses that are essential under the patents, only the use of unlicensed optical discs would be an infringement – regardless of any third-party software used to manipulate the discs. JVC did not argue, and no evidence of record established, that unlicensed discs should be attributed to Nero, or the patent pool license should not encompass discs and end-users that implemented the Nero software.

The en banc Court reversed the previous panel, and expanded the circumstances under which an alleged infringer may be liable under §271(a). In addition to circumstances identified by the panel, liability may arise if “an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or the receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of the patented method, and establishes the manner or timing of that performance.” When that standard is satisfied, the actions of a third party may be attributed to the alleged infringer, who thereby directly infringes under §271(a), even though there was no “mastermind” acting though a formal agent.

In the decision dated 5th May, 2015, the General Court of the European Union concluded, upon examining the opposition by British SKY Broadcasting Group Plc (now SKY International) against Skype Ultd, that there is an existence of likelihood of confusion between the prior registered mark, “SKY” and the applied mark, “SKYPE” preventing the registration of the sign, SKYPE, in the European community.

Both Korea and China are major players on the global patent stage, and the leading companies of these countries file and obtain thousands of patents annually. But it seems increasingly clear that the governments of these countries are attempting to support their domestic companies via antitrust enforcement to lower the price of access to patented technologies of foreign competitors.

The Federal Circuit affirmed. The asserted claims were not obvious because, although the claimed amounts (0.01% bimatoprost and 200 ppm BAK) fell within the range disclosed in the prior art (0.001-1% bimatoprost and 0-1000 ppm BAK), Allergan “had produced ample evidence of teaching away and unexpected results, and that such evidence fully support[ed] a conclusion of non-obviousness.” For example: (1) BAK is a toxin and “should be minimized in ophthalmic formulations to avoid safety problems,” (2) BAK decreases permeability of bimatoprost, and (3) BAK causes hyperemia at high concentrations. Thus, the prior art “’criticize[d], discredit[ed], or otherwise discourage[d]’ the use of 200 ppm BAK in a bimatoprost formulation.”

Ethicon sued Covidien in the Ohio district court for infringement of utility and design patents directed to ultrasonic surgical shear devices. The court granted Covidien’s motions for summary judgment, concluding that one patent was invalid as indefinite, that another patent was not infringed by Covidien’s products, and that several design patents were invalid as functional and were not infringed. Ethicon appealed the judgment to the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit reversed on indefiniteness, reversed the district court’s determination that Ethicon’s design patents were invalid as primarily functional, and vacated the summary judgment of non-infringement for a surgical shears patent.

The titans of the 19th Century made fortunes because they controlled access to the raw materials and infrastructure of commerce: steel, oil, lumber, railroads, canals, shipping. In contrast, the Third Industrial Revolution creates value not just from ideas that improve our ability to transform materials, but from information itself. This shift to intangible assets has been profound, but so swift that few have paid sufficient attention to the magnitude of the change. In the Information Age, your secrets – a new technology, a business plan, insights extracted from data analytics – define your competitive advantage. And because business is global, competition can emerge anywhere, anytime.

Technology Center 2400 covers the technologies of computer networks, multiplex communication, video distribution, and cybersecurity. In terms of average time to allowance, it is the slowest-moving technology center, with most applications waiting approximately 3.5 years before allowance. When it comes to average allowance rate, TC 2400 is lower than the USPTO at large, at 62% and 71%, respectively. As the home of art units concerning cryptography and cybersecurity, many of the patent applications in TC 2400 are on the front line of the fight against cyber crime, an increasingly large and growing problem in the United States. This is a ranking of the top 10 most successful firms at obtaining patents in TC 2400.

Innovation is the lifeblood of a prosperous economy. Sound patent policy, which encourages the nexus between risk and ideas (especially for small entrepreneurs), makes invention profitable. The U.S. patent system enables that dream by protecting the market an invention creates long enough for the inventor to gain a toehold against competition, and by creating a property right capable of attracting critical investment to bring the invention to market and grow the business. Don’t let H.R. 9 or S.1137 kill this can do American spirit of innovation.

The first and most critical task in most eligibility analysis is carefully and precisely defining the subject matter of the claims as well as the natural phenomenon that is potentially being claimed. The superficial definitions in current court decisions are usually found in the part of a decision where the court explains what the patentee “essentially” or “generally” claimed. I understand that judges are not technology experts, but the current shortcut of boiling claims down to their “essence” is particularly problematic in a § 101 case. Everything is a “natural phenomenon” if this term is treated expansively.

The issue was whether the disputed prior art is sufficiently “analogous” to the art of marking interface plates for it to be applied in a proper obviousness analysis. The Court held that even though an inventor may be aware of rock carving, engraved signage, or Prussian Blue methods, this does not mean that he would look to these methods when trying to improve markings for circuit board testers. The Court also found that the jury’s determination of validity, which tacitly concluded the disputed prior art was non-analogous, was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

VeRO is ebay’s Verified Rights Owner program. VeRO allows a right’s owner (someone who has a verified trademark, copyright, etc.) to request removal of an item. A company by the name of Mad Dogg Athletics, Inc. (MDA) is a member of the eBay VeRO Program and uses this program to enforce the nearly one hundred trademarks it owns, which include: spin, spinning, spinner, spin yoga, spinfitness, and spin daddy. With that said, only MDA’s Spin® bike can be called that, and so my client’s “spin bike” listing was removed due to use of the word spin.