Patent Owners can Recover for Lost Foreign Profits By Blog Staff On June 22, 2018, in WesternGeco, LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, the Supreme Court held that patent owners can recover for lost foreign profits based on 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2). The statute states that “[W]however without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention […] Continue Reading →
Inter Partes Review Proceedings (IPRs) Survive First Constitutional Challenge, But Court Opinion Opens Door to Further Challenges By Jonathan L. Kennedy On April 24, 2018, I had posted regarding the U.S. Supreme Court being held in a 7-2 decision (Justice Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts dissenting),Oil States Energy Servs. v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, that the Inter Partes Review proceedings, commonly referred to as IPRs, do not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the […] Continue Reading →
U.S. Patent Number 10 Million By Kirk M. Hartung Last week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reached a new milestone, with issuance of patent number 10 million. This patent is entitled Coherent LADAR Using Intra-Pixel Quadrature Detection, and relates to a laser detection system for various industries, such as medical imaging and autonomous vehicles. The patent is owned by Raytheon Company, of […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Defines “manufactured” Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498 By Blog Staff In FastShip, LLC v. United States, decided on June 5, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) defined the term “manufactured” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498. The statute states that a patent owner can sue the U.S. government for infringement when “an invention [covered by a U.S. patent] is […] Continue Reading →
A Commentary on Women in the Profession and MVS By Heidi Sease Nebel A recent article appeared in the Lexis Nexis news piece “Law360”, describing the dismal results of their annual “Glass Ceiling Report”. The article concluded that there had been “limited progress” for female attorneys in a male-dominated profession. Women have represented over 40% of law school students for decades, according to the American Bar Association, yet, […] Continue Reading →
Patent Eligibility of Bioinformatics Innovations By Sarah M.D. Luth Bioinformatics has increasingly become of interest in the last decade. Bioinformatics generally refers to the use of computational methods used to compile, analyze, visualize effects, and predict trends or outcomes for oftentimes large data sets. Bioinformatics tools can be applied to gene regulation, immunology, drug repositioning, drug identification, and virtually any other application where a […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Clarifies Means-Plus-Function Limitations By Blog Staff On June 1st, in Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a district court decision that several patent claims asserted against Apple Inc. were invalid. The district court held that the claims contained means-plus-function limitations and that the specifications did not disclose sufficient […] Continue Reading →
Fraudulent Invention Development Company Banned By Kirk M. Hartung Last month, the Federal Trade Commission announced the settlement of a lawsuit against an invention development company which permanently enjoins the company from further business due to fraudulent and deceitful conduct with inventors. Scott Cooper and his companies, World Patent Marketing and Desa Industries, Inc., used bogus success stories to get clients to pay thousands […] Continue Reading →
Federal Circuit Judges Encourage Congress to Act on Patent Eligibility By Kirk M. Hartung Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C 101 has been a hot topic in the past few years and in view of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions, including the 2014 caseAlice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347. In Alice, the Supreme Court concluded that abstract ideas are not patentable, absent something more, […] Continue Reading →
Design Patents: An Analogy By Gregory Lars Gunnerson A recent Webinar moderated by Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com titled, “Strategic Use of Design Patents”, analogized a design patent to a tool in a tool box. This analogy is intriguing. For example, a utility patent could be considered a hammer, as it is useful in a wide array of applications and delivers a devastating impact […] Continue Reading →