Supreme Court to hear case regarding proper standard for proving inducing infringement under 271(b) In an order today, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case regarding the necessary intent for inducing infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The case is Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., docket number 10-6. The specific question presented is: Whether the legal standard for the state of mind element of a claim for […] Continue Reading →
Compliance with industry standards can be used to show patent infringement In Fujitsu et al v. Netgear, the Federal Circuit held compliance with an industry standard can be sufficient evidence to establish patent infringement. However, this rule only applies when the only way to adhere to the industry standard is to infringe the asserted patent, such that any product that complies with the standard infringes. In […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit decisions address false marking statute in Solo Cup and Brooks Brothers cases The Federal Circuit continues to address false marking cases. The court's recent decisions stress how important it is for patentees to monitor and update their labeling and other marking activities, particularly as patents expire. In June, the court affirmed a summary judgment decision in favor of Solo Cup related to the company's practice of marking […] Continue Reading →
Preamble held not limiting because body of claim sets forth complete invention In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court had granted summary judgment of noninfringement to the defendant finding that the defendant's accused device did not perform a function found only in the preambles of the asserted claims.The Federal Circuit […] Continue Reading →
Ninth Circuit: AutoCAD purchasers are licensees, so first sale doctrine does not apply to resale In a decision last week, the Ninth Circuit held the purchaser of a copy of AutoCAD software was not an owner of the copy, but instead a licensee. As a result, the purchaser did not have the protection of the first sale doctrine (codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a)) when attempting to resell the software […] Continue Reading →
USPTO publishes interim guidance for assessing patentable subject matter post-Bilski In a Federal Register notice today, the USPTO has published interim guidance regarding how examiners are to assess whether an application's patent claims fall within the scope of patentable subject matter defined in § 101 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski. Many patent attorneys were concerned when the initial memo to examiners […] Continue Reading →
Copyright Office issues new DMCA exemptions: iPhone jailbreaking, noncommercial use of DVD snippets Every three years, the United States Copyright Office seeks proposals for exemptions from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). As part of the DMCA, it became unlawful to circumvent access control measures copyright holders used to secure their copyrighted works. For example, it is arguably a violation of the DMCA to use a program to […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court: Business method patents survive, but barely; Bilski’s claims unpatentable Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Bilski v. Kappos, the most recent case at the Court probing the boundaries of patentable subject matter under § 101. Details of the underlying facts of the Bilski case may be found in our post on the Federal Circuit's en banc decision here. All nine Justices agreed that Bilski's method […] Continue Reading →
Bilski decided This morning, the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Bilski v. Kappos. The court affirmed the Federal Circuit's decision. We'll have more detailed analysis soon. To read the opinion, click here. Continue Reading →
Ninth Circuit: Filing copyright application sufficient to bring suit under Section 411(a) In a decision last week, the Ninth Circuit held the filing of an application for registration with the copyright office is sufficient to meet the requirement that a copyright be "registered" before suit is brought under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). In the first circuit court decision on the subject since the Supreme Court's Reed Elsevier […] Continue Reading →