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  In this non-precedential opinion (Fed.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 […]

Lost Profit Damages Require Actual Sales by Patentee

The award of damages in patent infringement cases is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 284. The statute provides “[u]pon finding for the [patent owner] the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the […]

Alternative Patent Reform Legislation Proposed in Senate

Even though the America Invents Act is just over 3 years old, patent reform legislation has arisen on several occasions over the past years. The most visible legislative efforts have involved the “Innovation Act” proposed by Senator Goodlatte in 2013, and again in 2015. The version of the Innovation Act introduced in 2013 stalled out […]

Claim Preambles as Limitations- the Saga Continues

The preamble of a patent claim normally recites some purpose or objective, but is generally not considered to limit the scope of the claim unless it “breaths life and meaning into the claim.” There are a number of ways that the preamble can take on patentable weight, including by serving as the antecedent basis for […]

Update on “Patent Troll” Legislation in the Wake of the 2014 Elections

In December of 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 3309, the "Innovation Act," ostensibly to address the problem of abusive patent litigation, sometimes referred to as patent trolling. While H.R. 3309 passed with bipartisan support by an overwhelming margin of 325-91 votes, its companion bill failed to clear the Senate. Failure of the […]