Federal Circuit Affirms $7.5 Million Award in Telecommunications Suit On Tuesday, the Federal Circuit affirmed a $7.5 million jury verdict against Sprint in litigation over a series of Comcast patents addressing computer network technology assisting telephone calls. More specifically, the patents use Domain Name System (DNS) technology to identify a call destination, and route the calling party through a telecommunication system. Essentially, the call […] Continue Reading →
Juggling your Patent Family to Keep Optimal Patent Life You’ve filed a patent application that is to a broad, important aspect of your product, and also filed a continuing application to one version of that invention. The narrower second-filed application receives a notice of allowance. But before you pay the issue fee, it is worthwhile to consider whether this second narrower will impact the […] Continue Reading →
Not so ‘Black or White’: IRS Takes on Michael Jackson How much is Michael Jackson worth? This is one of the underlying questions currently being considered in U.S. Tax Court right now, as Michael Jackson’s estate battles with the Internal Revenue Service over the late entertainer’s estate taxes. The IRS served the Jackson estate with a notice of deficiency back in 2013 contesting the estate’s […] Continue Reading →
Are Patents by State Universities More Valuable? A recent USPTO Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB‚¬) decision begs the question whether patents owned by State Universities have increased value. The case, Covidien LP v. University of Florida Research Foundation Inc., held that patents assigned to State universities cannot be challenged in popular inter parties review (IPR) proceedings, because of state sovereign immunity under the […] Continue Reading →
When the Unthinkable Happens: IP Considerations for Bankruptcy In the event that the unthinkable happens and bankruptcy becomes the only course of action for businesses, having not only a good bankruptcy attorney, but also having an involved IP attorney is vital to ensure that rights in valuable intellectual property are appropriately addressed and maintained. A basic understanding of Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 […] Continue Reading →
Copyright Infringement and Fair Use in a Digital World In the most general sense, copyright infringement is copying, or using, a work protected by copyright without permission from the copyright owner. Almost inevitably, soon after you hear the words “copyright infringement”, you will also hear the words “fair use”. Fair use is one of the most frequently discussed defenses to copyright infringement but it […] Continue Reading →
Trading Technologies: Successful Software Patents In Trading Technologies v. GQG, the Federal Circuit addressed the patentability of software directed to a specific purpose. Trading Technologies owns patents for a computerized method and system for trading stocks, and other related goods. The method relies on improved software and user interface to facilitate stock transactions at a faster and more efficient pace. […] Continue Reading →
The Corporate King of Patents For the 24th straight year, IBM has received more U.S. patents than any other entity. In 2016, the Patent Office issued 8088 patents to IBM covering a wide range of inventions, including cloud computing, cyber security, artificial intelligence, cognitive computing, health care, medical devices, and drones. These patents named over 8500 different inventors from 47 states […] Continue Reading →
USPTO Released Its 2016 Performance and Accountability Report The USPTO published its annual Performance and Accountability Report for the 2016 fiscal year. The Report tracks “agency’s progress toward meeting goals outlined in our 2014-2018 Strategic Plan: optimizing patent quality and timeliness; optimizing trademark quality and timeliness; and providing domestic and global leadership to improve intellectual property policy, protection, and enforcement worldwide.‚¬ Thus, the […] Continue Reading →
Post-Grant Reviews under the America Invents Act The America Invents Act implemented the Post-grant Review (PGR) process as a new means of challenging existing patents. PGR differs from Inter Partes Review (IPR) in that PGR allows for a wider array of invalidity challenges. One example of a new challenge allowed under PGR is the ability to challenge the claims as being indefinite. […] Continue Reading →