New and Useful – January 23, 2013 · In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks—opposed the […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Addresses Obviousness Rationales and Counterarguments Recently, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in CW Zumbiel v. Kappos. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ (“BPAI”) finding that multiple claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,715,639 (“the ’639 patent”) were obvious and therefore invalid. The ’639 patent is directed to a “carton with an improved dispenser.” The carton […] Continue Reading →
New and Useful – Janurary 14, 2013 · The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot. […] Continue Reading →
Another Billion Dollar Patent Verdict Another billion dollar verdict has been handed out in a patent case. Read the verdict in Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, LTD. here. This latest case continues a string of billion dollar verdicts highlighted by Jonathan Kennedy in the latest edition of MVS Briefs. Carnegie Mellon brought suit alleging infringement of two of […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court Orders Federal Circuit to Reconsider Patent-Eligibility of Genes Just six days after it handed down its decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, ordering the appellate court to reconsider the case in light of the Prometheus decision. Order granting cert., vacating […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court Clarifies Patentability of Medical Treatments The Supreme Court recently handed down its unanimous decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-1150, slip op. (March 20, 2012). The Court specifically considered the patentability of a method for determining the effective levels of a drug to be administered to a patient, and found the claims in question to be […] Continue Reading →
Ultramercial LLC v. Hulu LLC The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of whether a method of using advertising as a form of currency, to distribute copyrighted products over the internet, constituted patent-eligible subject matter. The court reversed the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter eligibility and found the claimed invention […] Continue Reading →
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act Reforms Patent Law The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act goes into effect beginning September 16, 2011. This Act represents the most comprehensive legislative change to patent law since the 1950s. Most significantly, it changes how priority is determined for an invention and expands and revises procedures for administratively challenging patents through the Patent Office instead of the court system. […] Continue Reading →
Court Redefines Knowledge Requirement for Induced Infringement In a recent decision, authored by Justice Alito and joined by all the other Justices but Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court redefined the knowledge requirement for finding induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case—which centered on a patent for an innovative fryer—provided an opportunity for the Court to elucidate what is required for […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Establishes New Standard for Inequitable Conduct On May 25, 2011 the Federal Circuit released its en banc decision in Theresense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. , in which the Court articulated the appropriate standard for inequitable conduct before the PTO. The majority wrote, “[t]his court now tightens the standards for finding both intent and materiality in order to redirect a […] Continue Reading →