Impact of eBay on Injunctive Relief

Both preliminary and permanent injunctions can be crucial forms of relief in any patent case. In addition to preventing continuing infringement of a patent, an injunction puts the patent holder in a much better bargaining position for future licensing negotiations. In its eBay decision in 2006, the Supreme Court required lower courts to apply a […]

Octane Fitness in Practice: Federal Circuit Applies Supreme Court Attorney Fees Standard

The Supreme Court decision in Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health and Fitness (previously discussed on Filewrapper®) changed the standard for awarding attorney fees in patent suits to the prevailing party in exceptional cases under Section 258 of the patent statute. In Octane Fitness, the Court further defined “exceptional cases”to mean those “that stands out […]

The Continuing Saga of the First IPR at the Federal Circuit

    The Federal Circuit has simultaneously issued an order and an opinion in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, previously discussed on Filewrapper® as being the first appeal arising from an inter partes review (“IPR‚¬) . The order issued by the Federal Circuit is a denial of the Petition for En Banc Rehearing to consider […]

Kimble v. Marvel-SCOTUS’s Refusal to Overturn Brulotte

Kimble v. Marvel-SCOTUS Declines to Overturn Brulotte

            Patent portfolios are often a substantial asset to business associations, and even for the individual inventor an issued patent or two can be Big Business. Patent assignments (i.e. wholesale buying and selling of patents and patent applications) are not the only ways to trade in the commodity. Many transactions take […]

Teva v. Sandoz Revisited

Teva v. Sandoz Revisited On June 18, 2015, a Federal Circuit panel reaffirmed that the key claim of the patent at issue inTeva v. Sandoz, was invalid as indefinite. The procedural posture and technical background leading up to this decision is discussed in aprior blog post.  The Federal Circuit ultimately concluded that they are still […]

Supreme Court Weighs in on Belief of Patent Invalidity and Induced Infringement

Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, a party can be held liable for infringement of a patent under in a number of different ways. The most common liability is for direct, literal infringement of the patent, meaning that accused party actually practices every element of the asserted patent claim(s). The statute also includes provisions for liability based on […]

USPTO Announces Expedited Patent Appeal Program

On June 15, 2015, the USPTO announced in a Federal Register Notice that they will be commencing the Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program. This initial program will be available until either 2,000 ex parte patent appeals are expedited under the program, or until June 20, 2016, whichever occurs first. Typically, appeals are taken up by […]

Supreme Court Weighs in on Belief of Patent Invalidity and Induced Infringement

“Intangible” Software Unpatentable? – AllVoice Developments v. Microsoft

  In this non-precedential opinion (Fed. Cir. 2015) the Court held claims 60-68 of U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273 (the “‘273 Patent‚¬) invalid under 35. U.S.C. § 101 as not being directed to one of the four statutory categories of inventions identified in 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 60 is set forth below: 60. A universal speech-recognition […]