Supreme Court Holds Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, concluding that an act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. The decision unanimously held that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. Section […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court Defines Scope of Definiteness Required in Patent Claims Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. defining the standard for definiteness necessary to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, second paragraph. The decision unanimously rejected the "insolubly ambiguous" standard previously employed by the Federal Circuit to determine whether patent claims meet the statutory requirement […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court Issues Indefiniteness and Inducement Decisions The Supreme Court this week issued its decisions in two much anticipated IP cases. The Court's decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. concludes that at least one underlying act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. In Nautilus v. BioSig the Court instituted a new standard for […] Continue Reading →
Senate Bill Aimed at Combating Cyber Espionage Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has introduced a bill called the "Deter Cyber Theft Act" to the Senate floor that would require the Director of National Intelligence to report annually to congressional committees concerning foreign countries that engage in economic and industrial cyber espionage relating to intellectual property and proprietary information owned by U.S. companies. Under […] Continue Reading →
Senate Consideration on Patent Transparency and Improvements Act Stalls Out With the House of Representatives passing H.R.3009 Innovation Act in December 2013, the question is now whether the Senate will pass their version of an Innovation Act in the coming months. The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S.1720) is similar to the House text, with eight of the eleven major Senate provisions included in the […] Continue Reading →
Copyright 3-year Statute of Limitations Trumps Laches Defense PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC. Frank Petrella wrote two screenplays and one book based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta. One of the screenplays, registered in 1963, identifies Patrella as the sole author, written in collaboration with LaMotta. LaMotta and Patrella assigned their rights in the screenplay, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc. […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Finds Clones Unpatentable The Federal Circuit issued its opinion in In re Roslin Institute, a case involving cloned animals. The Roslin Institute (Roslin) owns a patent for methods of cloning animals, based on the work that created Dolly the Sheep. The inventors of that patent also assigned to Roslin an application claiming protection for the clones themselves. During […] Continue Reading →
“Insolubly Ambiguous” Standard not Applicable at the USPTO InIn re Packard the Federal Circuit held that the USPTO need not follow the insolubly ambiguous standard in order to satisfy a prima facie rejection for indefiniteness. Rather, the Federal Circuit held that when the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, […] Continue Reading →
Jury Returns Verdict for Apple in Patent Infringement Suit On Friday, May 2, 2014 a jury found Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") liable for infringing two patents owned by Apple, Inc. ("Apple"). The two patents are U.S. Patent No.5,946,647, which is directed to systems and methods that analyze text for things that can be hyperlinked, e.g., email addresses, websites, and phone numbers, and then provides […] Continue Reading →
MVS Filewrapper – Blog:Supreme Court Revises Standards for Sanctions in Exceptional Patent Cases Two U.S. Supreme Court opinions issued today—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.—have changed the framework for which exceptional cases are analyzed under § 285 of the Patent Act. For years, the controlling case with regard to § 285 of the Patent Act was […] Continue Reading →