Filewrapper

Initial thoughts on Microsoft v. AT&T, a.k.a. Deepsouth: the sequel

In what could be termed a sequel to the Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., the Court again found that if U.S. patent law is to extend its reach further into foreign acts, it must be Congress, not the courts, that extends it. The Court held that Microsoft's act of […]

Continue Reading →

New rules on continuations: coming to a CFR near you this July?

If the latest rumors are true, the USPTO may be giving inventors and patent prosecutors the newest summer blockbuster. According to Hal Wegner, on April 10, 2007, the USPTO submitted two rules to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, one related to continuation practice and "patentably indistinct claims," and another related to […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court proposes revisions to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In can what only be described as a busy day at the Supreme Court, the Court, in addition to rendering opinions in five cases (including two patent cases, see here and here), also proposed revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil, Criminal, Bankruptcy, and Appellate Procedure. While the Rules of Appellate Procedure only have a […]

Continue Reading →

Supreme Court reverses both KSR and Microsoft

As reported at SCOTUS Blog, the Supreme Court has today ruled in two cases, reversing decisions of the Federal Circuit. The first came in KSR v. Teleflex, where the Court has apparently ruled 9-0 that the Federal Circuit's view on obviousness is too narrow, reversing the decision that Teleflex's invention was nonobvious. Previous coverage of […]

Continue Reading →

Today’s opinions in KSR v. Teleflex and Microsoft v. AT&T

Click here for the opinion in KSR v. Teleflex. Click here for the opinion in Microsoft v. AT&T. More to come once we've had a chance to review the decisions.

Continue Reading →

House subcommittee holds first hearings on Patent Reform Act of 2007

Yesterday a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property, held the first hearings on the House version of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (HR 1908). The witnesses were: Gary L. Griswold, President and Chief Counsel of Intellectual Property 3M Innovative Properties, St. Paul Minnesota (testimony on […]

Continue Reading →

Same terms, same meanings, unless specification indicates otherwise

In an appeal by Porta Stor, Inc. of a judgment in favor of PODS, Inc. for, among other things, patent and copyright infringement, the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of patent infringement finding no literal infringement and finding that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was barred by prosecution history estoppel. The court also reversed […]

Continue Reading →

Compulsory patent licenses for AIDS drugs: the beginning of an international trend?

The global concern over the spread of AIDS, particularly in developing countries, is prompting some countries to take action to make patented drugs more accessible to its citizens. Earlier this year, Thailand decided to "break," or require a compulsory license to, the patent for Efavirenz, marketed as Sustiva® and Stocrin®, patented by Merck (Orange Book […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit panel splits on inherency case

In a second appeal involving patents relating to the original "Purple Pill®," a panel of the Federal Circuit split on whether an earlier patent application by a Korean company inherently anticipated one of AstraZeneca's patents covering the popular heartburn medication Prilosec® (omeprazole). The panel majority held that a process disclosed in a Korean patent application […]

Continue Reading →

Federal Circuit Puts the Brakes on District Court’s Claim Construction

The Federal Circuit today issued a fairly routine claim construction decision, vacating part of the district court's claim construction and remanding. The Court also affirmed the district court's decision to deny Rule 11 sanctions (applying Ninth Circuit law). More details of the case after the jump. Intamin Ltd. sued Magnetar Technologies Corp. for infringement of […]

Continue Reading →

Stay in Touch

Receive the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

Sign Up