Is the Supreme Court Re-Aiming Markman? The 1996 United States Supreme Court decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments established a landmark change for claim construction in patent infringement cases. That case established that the meaning of the claim language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, and not a matter of fact that should be […] Continue Reading →
Supreme Court Determines Internet Service Violates Copyrights The Supreme Court has issued its much anticipateddecision in American Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. The Court held that an internet service provided by Aereo—which allows subscribes to watch television programs over the internet contemporaneous with the programs as they are broadcasted over the air—violates of a copyright owner's exclusive right to perform a […] Continue Reading →
Generic Computer Implementation Cannot Save Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion inAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The Petitioner, Alice Corporation ("Alice Corp.") is the assignee of the four patents at issue which disclose method, system, and media claims related to a computerized scheme for mitigating "settlement risk." Respondents CLS Bank International and CLS Services […] Continue Reading →
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 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 →
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 →
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 →
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 →
Who May Bring a Federal False Advertising Suit? The Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. prescribed the appropriate framework for determining whether a plaintiff has standing in a false advertising action under the 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Prior to this decision, there were three competing approaches to determining whether a plaintiff has standing to bring suit under […] Continue Reading →
2014 Supreme Court Cases Relating to Intellectual Property On January 10, 2014 the Supreme Court agreed to review a variety of intellectual property cases in the upcoming session, including two patent cases, a copyright case, and a trademark case (including Lanham Act claim). A brief overview of these cases is provided and more detail will be available once decisions are entered by the […] Continue Reading →