Important Changes in U.S. Intellectual Property Law (2016 Update)
|
|
- Meagan Harrington
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Important Changes in U.S. Intellectual Property Law (2016 Update) Seminar Topic: This program examines the various approaches to patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets through examples of bills, previous litigations, court s decision, etc... This material is intended to be a guide in general and is not legal advice. If you have any specific question regarding the state of the law in any particular jurisdiction, we recommend that you seek legal guidance relating to your particular fact situation. The course materials will provide the attendee with the knowledge and tools necessary to identify the current legal trends with respect to these issues. The course materials are designed to provide the attendee with current law, impending issues and future trends that can be applied in practical situations. Page 1
2 Copyright 2017 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this monograph may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, except for citation within legal documents filed with a tribunal, without permission in writing from the publisher. Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are not a legal opinion. Every fact situation is different and the reader is encouraged to seek legal advice for their particular situation. The Apex Jurist, is Published by ApexCLE, Inc South Emerson St., Suite 248 Mount Prospect, Illinois Ordering Information: Copies of this monograph may be ordered direct from the publisher for $64.95 plus $4.25 shipping and handling. Please enclose your check or money order and shipping information. For educational, government or multiple copy pricing, please contact the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data ApexCLE, Inc. 1. ApexCLE, Inc. 2. Law-United States Guide-books. 3. Legal Guide 4. Legal Education. Page 2
3 About the Author and Presenter Adrienne Naumann Adrienne Naumann established her own practice in 1996 which is exclusively intellectual property law. Ms. Naumann s practice includes individual entrepreneurs and start-up companies, as well as small and medium sized businesses. Her issued patents include a broad range of technologies including: a razor handle, board game, agricultural method, pneumatically driven trench shoring device, floral containers, electromechanical lock, laminar flow nozzle, portable exercise devices, mechanical bag holder and shelving. She has also filed successful patent application appeals in the Patent & Trademark Office on behalf of clients. Ms. Naumann has obtained trademarks, copyrights and design patents on behalf of artists, writers and companies. In addition to obtaining intellectual property protection through government agencies, Ms. Naumann advises and drafts documents on matters of ownership, shop rights, work for hire, transfers of rights, licenses, permissions, rescission, consents, non-disclosure agreements, releases, trade secrets, proprietary information and web sites. Ms. Naumann judges the Illinois Institute of Technology Interprofessional Projects Program in Chicago. Ms. Naumann also serves on the Board of the University of Chicago, Chicago Women s Alliance and on the e-discovery committee for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Author s Address: adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu Author s Website: ann/ip/ Author s Mailing Address: 8210 Tripp Avenue Skokie, IL Author s Phone Number: , Page 3
4 Table of Contents Contents Table of Contents... 4 Timed Agenda:... 6 Important Changes in U.S. Intellectual Property Law You Can t Overlook... 7 Patent law... 7 Pending Congressional Legislation... 7 A. H.R. 9 -The Innovation Act- provides in relevant part:... 7 B. S Strong Patents Act of 2015 provides in relevant part... 7 C. S Patent Act provides in relevant part... 7 Recent Supreme Court Decisions... 8 A. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. [Alice] v. CLS Bank International [CLS], 573 U.S., 82 L.Ed.2d 296, 2014 U.S. Lexis 4303, 82 U.S.L.W (2014)... 8 B. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2120; 189 L.Ed.2d 37; 2014 U.S. Lexis 3818, 82 U.S.L.W (2014).. 11 C. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techologies, Inc. et al. [Limelight and Akamai], 572 U.S.,134 S.Ct. 2111, 189 L.Ed.2d 52, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3817; 82 U.S.L.W. 4439, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (2014) D. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1744, 188 Led.2d 829, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3106, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1343 (2014)[Highmark and Allcare] E. Octane Fitness, LLC. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3107, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1337 (2014) [ICON and Octane] F. Teva v. Sandoz, 574 U.S. (2015) G. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. (2015) H. Kimble et al. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC., 576 U.S. (2015) 17 I. Cases granted certiorari (willfulness test for enhanced patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. 284) Copyright Laches, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer et al. [MGM], 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 188 L.E.2d 979, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3311, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1605(2014) A. American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. et al. v. Aereo, Inc. et al., 2014 U.S. Lexis 4496 (June 25, 2014)[ABC and Aereo] B. The Aereo Supreme Court Decision Page 4
5 C. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282, 2013 Dist. Lexis , 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), affirmed, Authors Guild v. Google Inc., No (2d Cir. October 16, 2015) Trade Dress H. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,nos , (Fed. Cir. 2015) Page 5
6 Timed Agenda: Time: Description: 00:00:00 Program Start 00:01:13 Recent Changes in U.S. Intellectual Property Law You Can t Overlook 00:01:37 Patent Law 00:01:41 H.R. 9 -The Innovation Act 00:06:30 S Strong Patents Act of :08:52 S Patent Act 00:13:25 Recent Supreme Court Decisions 00:13:48 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. [Alice] v. CLS Bank International [CLS] 00:25:33 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. 00:29:15 Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techologies, Inc. et al. [Limelight and Akamai] 00:34:30 Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 00:37:48 Octane Fitness, LLC. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. 00:40:33 Teva v. Sandoz 00:41:21 Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc 00:43:59 Kimble et al. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC 00:45:41 Cases granted certiorari 00:48:23 Copyright 00:48:38 Laches, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer et al. [MGM] 00:52:07 American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. et al. v. Aereo, Inc. et al 00:57:06 Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. 01:04:00 Trade Dress 01:04:26 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al 01:12:50 Program End Page 6
7 Important Changes in U.S. Intellectual Property Law You Can t Overlook Patent law Pending Congressional Legislation A. H.R. 9 -The Innovation Act- provides in relevant part: 1. Parties alleging patent infringement in a civil action must establish bona fide standing to allege infringement, as well as the basis for the court s jurisdiction. 2. Courts must award prevailing parties reasonable attorney fees and expenses under most circumstances. 3. Courts may order payment of these fees by a joined party unless a. The non-prevailing party was substantially justified, or b. the award would otherwise be unfair. 4. Under most circumstances a party who unilaterally offers a covenant not to sue is subject to a motion for attorneys fees as if it were a nonprevailing party. 5. Absent the defendant s consent, venue for patent infringement litigation to restricted to locations wherein the defendant a. has its principle place of business b. is incorporated c. has established a physical facility, or d. conducts significant research and manufacturing for the alleged infringed invention. B. S Strong Patents Act of 2015 provides in relevant part 1. numerous provisions for modification of the post patent grant challlenge process and re-examination requests filed with the United States Patent Office. 1. liability for a. actively inducing infringement of a process patent, or b. contributory infringement of a process patent, and even if individual process steps are not practiced by a single entity. C. S Patent Act provides in relevant part Page 7
8 1. Amendment to patent law to add pleading and disclosure requirements for patent infringement litigation. 2. The Federal Trade Commission may prosecute entities for sending fraudulent demand letters alleging patent infringement. 3. Standards for treatment of trademarks under the U.S. bankruptcy code 4. Parties alleging infringement, and whose principle business is patent litigation, must identify entities with a financial interest in the litigation for purposes of paying attorney fee awards. 5. Upon motion, a court must a. stay an action against retailers or end users under specified conditions, b. if this retailer or end user agrees to comply with the outcome in the manufacturer s patent infringement litigation Recent Supreme Court Decisions A. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. [Alice] v. CLS Bank International [CLS], 573 U.S., 82 L.Ed.2d 296, 2014 U.S. Lexis 4303, 82 U.S.L.W (2014) 1. Representative early decisions addressing patent eligibility of computer related inventions a. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S 175 (1981)(computerized process that determines the time period for curing rubber within a mold is patent eligible) b. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L.Ed.2d 41 (1978) (computerized updating of alarm limits is not patent eligible) c. In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 1994)( generic computer programmed for a particular result is patent eligible) d. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447(Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 946 (1999)(computer implemented process for billing customers of numerous service providers) i. held to be patent eligible without physical transformation of subject matter ii. when there is a useful, tangible and concrete result. e. Ex Parte Carl A. Lundgren, 76 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Bd. Of Pat. Apps. & Ints. 2005) (a business method without apparatus or physical transformation of subject matter.) Page 8
9 i. the method was patent eligible because there was a practical application with a useful, concrete and tangible result. ii. one judge dissented 2. After Ex Parte Carl A. Lundgren a. Bilski v Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 ( 2010) i. held: a financial business method relating to hedge funds, without more is merely an abstract idea and therefore is not patent eligible, and ii. there was no description of apparatus in the claims or specification by which to implement the abstract idea. b. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S.,132 S. Ct (2012) i. the disputed patent claimed a diagnostic method that measured the metabolites in the patient s blood resulting from injection of specific therapeutics. ii. Held to be patent ineligible because the claim was to a natural phenomenon without additional innovative features, and iii. Natural phenomenon, as well abstract ideas, are per se never patent-eligible. 3. Background of the litigation: lower federal courts. a. Alice s challenged patents in the infringement lawsuit relate to a computerized trading platform for financial transactions that eliminates settlement risks b. The district court granted summary judgment to CLS ( the alleged infringer) because i. Alice s method claims designated an abstract idea of employing an intermediary in a business transaction and ii. this method claim would pre-empt the use of this abstract idea on all computers iii. the result was the same for Alice s media and system claims. 4. The Federal Circuit s en banc decision a. Issues Page 9
10 i. Do Alice s disputed claims pre-empt an abstract concept? ii. If so, do Alice s claims add significantly more to the abstract, patent in-eligible business concept of reducing financial risk? b. Per curiam method and media claims i. the underlying contended innovation is the implementation of an abstract business concept. ii. the claims lack any express language to define the computer s participation. iii. remaining portions of the method claim, such as creating a shadow record, are insignificant pre-solution activity. iv. the addition of generic computer functions to facilitate performance is insufficient. v. therefore the method claims are invalid as patent ineligible subject matter. vi. similarly, the computer readable media claims designate computer readable storage media in broad terms. vii. the remaining substantive claim limitations designate the same steps recited in the non- patent eligible method claims. c. Decision of equally divided court: System claims for the computer system i. these claims recite tangible but generic devices such as a computer and data storage unit, in general terminology. ii. the system claims also designate the same method claim steps. iii. however, every general purpose computer can perform the same steps to implement abstract methods. 5. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision a. The claims in this case are drawn to a patent ineligible abstract idea Page 10
11 b. These methods claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the abstract business idea only required generic computer implementation. c. Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally a feature that would otherwise permit the monopolization of an abstract idea. d. Here the claims do not designate an improvement(s) to a computer or computer related technology. e. The system and media claims do not add substantively to the method claims, so they are also patent ineligible for the same reasons. i. Mayo established the two-step framework for determining whether a claim is patent eligible when it is primarily a law of nature. ii. Bilski established that an abstract financial idea per se is not patent eligible. 6. Effect of this Supreme Court decision a. Significantly deceases the patent eligibility of business methods implemented by computer related devices. b. Does not affect computer related inventions per se. c. Merged the concept of pre-emption of an abstract idea with the requirement for an inventive concept in addition to an abstract idea. B. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 2120; 189 L.Ed.2d 37; 2014 U.S. Lexis 3818, 82 U.S.L.W (2014) 1. Background of the litigation a. Upon summary judgment, Biosig s patent was found invalid based upon indefiniteness [ 35 U.S.C. 112(b)] b. The medical device claim in the disputed patent required a spaced relationship between two electrodes. c. However the patent specification did not explicitly define the term spaced relationship. 2. The Federal Circuit decision a. The district court erred because the disputed term was amenable to construction. b. The spaced relationship is indirectly determined by calculating the point at which Page 11
12 i. EMG signals are substantially removed and(ii) includes size, shape and materials as well as positions of electrodes. c. Therefore the claims provided inherent parameters sufficient for a skilled artisan to understand the bounds of the spaced relationship. 3. Supreme Court decision a. The Federal Circuit s standards i. amendable to construction and ii. insolubly ambiguous do not satisfy section 112 second paragraph s definiteness requirement: b. This degree of imprecision diminishes public notice and increases uncertainty of the invention s boundaries. c. The case was vacated and remanded to the Federal Circuit for a test that was probative of the essential inquiry. C. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techologies, Inc. et al. [Limelight and Akamai], 572 U.S.,134 S.Ct. 2111, 189 L.Ed.2d 52, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3817; 82 U.S.L.W. 4439, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (2014) 1. Background of the litigation a. Akamai owns a software patent for a method of efficient delivery of web content. b. Limelight s network of servers also implements efficient content delivery. i. however, Limelight s customers complete the process required for the actual content delivery, by ii. completing the step in the patent known as tagging. c. Consequently, Akamai filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of its patent by Limelight. d. The district court found no direct infringement because i. the customers actually performed several steps within the patented method ii. but not all the steps as is required under 35 U.S.C.271(a) iii. without direct infringement under section 271(a),there could be no indirect infringement under section 271(b). Page 12
13 2. The Federal Circuit per curiam decision a. Limelight was not liable for direct infringement because it did not direct and control the health care providers and patients b. However, Limelight is liable for inducing infringement if i. Limelight knew of the patent ii. performed all but one step of the claimed method, and iii. induced customers to perform the final claimed method steps, and iv. the customers actually performed the final step of the claimed method. 3. The Supreme Court decision a. Liability for inducement requires direct infringement. b. The Federal Circuit s view would deprive section 271(b) of ascertainable standards. c. Courts should not create liability for inducement where Congress has not done so. d. The decision on 271(b) requires a remand where the Federal Circuit may also focus upon interpretation of section 271(a). 4. On remand : Akamai Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., F.3d (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2015) a. 35 U.S.C. 271(a) does not include joint tort feasor liability, except for vicarious liability. b. Congress enacted only certain forms of contributory liability in 271(b) and (c). c. The panel relied upon the single entity rule to define the scope of vicarious liability under 271(a). 5. Subsequent Federal Circuit en banc rehearing and per curiam opinion a. 35 U.S.C. 271(a) liability occurs where all the steps of a claimed method are performed or attributable to a single entity. b. That single entity is responsible for performance of all methods steps as direct infringers whenever that entity i. directs or controls others performance, or Page 13
14 ii. forms a joint enterprise with others. c. vicarious liability law determines whether a single entity directs or controls the acts of another d. for a joint enterprise all are accountable for the acts of the other as if a single actor. e. direct infringement requires that all method steps be attributed to a single entity. f. Limelight in this case directs or controls the customer s remaining method step and so all steps are attributable to Limelight under 271(a). D. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1744, 188 Led.2d 829, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3106, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1343 (2014)[Highmark and Allcare] 1. Background of the litigation a. Highmark filed a declaratory judgment suit against Allcare for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of Allcare s patent for an electronic payment method. b. The district court found non-infringement in favor of Highmark, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. c. Highmark then requested attorney fees for frivolous claims and litigation misconduct under section 285. i. the district court found the case exceptional and awarded Highmark attorney fees, expenses and sanctions ii. Allcare appealed this award. 2. The Federal Circuit decision a. The Federal Circuit reviewed each claim de novo for exceptional status under the following non-statutory criteria: i. to qualify as exceptional under section 285 and be entitled to attorney fees: (a) The litigation must be brought in subjective bad faith AND (b) The litigation must be objectively baseless ii. The absence of an objective foundation for claims must either be (a) known, or (b) so obvious that it should have been known. Page 14
15 iii. The subjective state of mind inquiry considers the totality of circumstances. 3. The Federal Circuit decision a. The Federal Circuit reviewed each claim de novo for exceptional status under the following non-statutory criteria: i. to qualify as exceptional under section 285 and be entitled to attorney fees: (a) The litigation must be brought in subjective bad faith AND (b) The litigation must be objectively baseless ii. The absence of an objective foundation for claims must either be (a) known, or (b) so obvious that it should have been known. iii. The subjective state of mind inquiry considers the totality of circumstances. b. The objective and subjective inquiries require a claim by claim approach of the challenged patent. c. Here, at least one of Allcare s patent claim disputes warranted an exceptional case finding because i. there was no evidence that the claim was ever supportable, and ii. therefore the allegation was brought in subjective bad faith. d. Only if litigation is objectively meritless may a court examine subjective motivation. e. The appellate court affirmed the exceptional finding for one patent claim, but it reversed the district court's finding for another claim. 4. Question for the U.S. Supreme Court: Whether a trial court s exceptional case finding under section 285, and which concludes that patent claims are objectively without merit, is entitled to deference upon appellate review. 5. U.S. Supreme Court decision a. Vacated the appellate court judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Page 15
16 b. Held that the proper standard for review of a district court s award of attorney fees under section 285 is abuse of discretion. E. Octane Fitness, LLC. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1749, 188 L.Ed.2d 816, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3107, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1337 (2014) [ICON and Octane] 1. Background of the litigation a. Appeal to the Federal Circuit from a summary judgment of non-infringement, and denial of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. section 285. b. Octane asserted that ICON s unreasonable claim construction, privilege assertions and s established bad faith of ICON. 2. The Federal Circuit affirmed that the case was not exceptional under section Question presented to the Supreme Court: Does the traditional two-part test (subjective prong and objective prong) for exceptional cases under 35 U.S.C. section 285 encourage frivolous patent infringement litigation? 4. U.S. Supreme Court decision a. Reversed the Federal Circuit and remanded for further proceedings consistent with modified criteria for establishing a case as exceptional under section 285. b. The Court observed that previous decisions impose an inflexible framework onto the exceptional case standard of section 285. c. Instead, patent infringement that is either, but not both (i) subjectively in bad faith or (ii) objectively baseless merits section 285 exceptional status. d. In other words, both kinds of evidence --- subjective AND objective---need not be present for a case to be exceptional. e. Furthermore, evidence of exceptionality need not meet a clear and convincing standard. f. Instead, as with other fee-shifting statutes, a preponderance of the evidence is the satisfactory level of proof for establishing exceptionality. Page 16
17 F. Teva v. Sandoz, 574 U.S. (2015) 1. The Court held that a district court s resolutions of fact underlying patent claim construction require a clear error, and not a de novo, standard of review. 2. The Court then vacated and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for a decision compliant with the clear error standard. G. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. (2015) 1. A defendant s good faith belief regarding patent validity is not a defense to an induced infringement allegation U.S.C. 271(a)(direct infringement), is a strict liability offense for which mental state is irrelevant U.S.C. 271(c) (contributory infringement)requires knowledge of the patent and that the induced acts are infringing U.S.C. 271(b) (induced infringement) also requires (i) knowledge of the patent and (ii) that the induced acts are infringing. 5. A defendant s belief about patent validity is not an defense to a claim of induced infringement, because induced infringement is a different issue from patent validity. 6. Patent invalidity is not a defense to infringement although it is a defense to liability. 7. The Court vacated and remanded the Federal Circuit decision. H. Kimble et al. v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC., 576 U.S. (2015) 1. All patent related benefits end whenever the specific patent term expires. 2. Therefore, in this case the party who had contracted for royalties on sales of the patented invention could not enforce the agreement for those royalties past the patent expiration date. I. Cases granted certiorari (willfulness test for enhanced patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. 284) 1. Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, 790 F.3dd 1357(Fed. Cir.) cert. granted no.1453, S.Ct. (October 19, 2015) consolidated for hearing with 2. Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., 782 F.3d 649 (Fed. Cir. ) cert. granted no S.Ct. (October 19, Page 17
18 Copyright 1. Laches, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer et al. [MGM], 572 U.S., 134 S. Ct. 1962, 188 L.E.2d 979, 2014 U.S. Lexis 3311, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1605(2014) A. History of the litigation 1. Two screenplays and a book about Jake LaMotta were registered with the United States Copyright Office. 2. The renewal copyright application for a screenplay was filed in 1991 on behalf of the owner of the renewal rights [Petrella]. 3. Petrella did not initiate a copyright infringement lawsuit until The lower court granted summary judgment for MGM on the basis of laches ) B. The appellate court s decision 1. Laches a. The relevant delay is the period from (i) when Petrella knew or should have known of any infringement (ii) until the lawsuit commences. b. There is no credible evidence for justification of failure to file the lawsuit from 1990 to c. MGM was prejudiced by the delay because: i. The film was distributed with substantial financial and other resources, as well as agreements to license the film. 2. Accounting and unjust enrichment were denied to Petrella because there was no evidence of willful infringement. 3. Issue for the Supreme Court: Whether Petrella is barred by laches from filing a copyright infringement lawsuit within the statute of limitations. C. U.S. Supreme Court decision 1. Reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated Ms. Petrella s complaint. 2. Held: there was no viable affirmative defense of laches when Ms. Petrella filed her compliant within the applicable three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement. 3. In dicta the court observed that a proper affirmative defense may be estoppel if Page 18
19 a. A copyright owner engages in intentionally misleading representations about abstention from suit and b. The alleged infringer detrimentally relies upon these misleading representations. c. Petrella notified MGM of her claims d. Before MGM invested in a new edition of Raging Bull. 4. In this case, there are no extraordinary circumstances or intentional misrepresentation. II. Public performance and unlawful reproduction A. American Broadcasting Cos. Inc. et al. v. Aereo, Inc. et al., 2014 U.S. Lexis 4496 (June 25, 2014)[ABC and Aereo] 1. Background of the litigation a. Holders of copyrights in broadcast works filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Aereo. b. Copyright holders also moved for a preliminary injunction to i. prevent Aereo from transmitting programs ii. while the programs were initially airing, iii. claiming that these transmissions infringed their exclusive right to publicly perform their works. c. Aereo s antenna are sent signals by Aereo s antenna server. i. With Aereo s technology, a copy of the specifically requested program is transmitted to that requesting Aero user. ii. Each copy of a program is only accessible to the user who requested that the copy d. The district court concluded that the copyright holders were unlikely to prevail on the merits. 2. The appellate court s decision a. Prior Second Circuit law had interpreted the transmit clause of the 1976 Copyright Act for the public performance right i. under this interpretation, use of a single unique copy limits the potential audience of a corresponding single transmission to a single user which is therefore not to the public. ii. for Aereo s system there is a unique copy of a program that is exclusively assigned to only one user through signals from a single antenna. Page 19
20 b. It is the underlying transmission and not the underlying work, that determines whether the transmission is to the public. i. in this case, no single Aereo user can receive a transmission from another user s copy for a particular program. c. Consequently, Aereo s transmission to each individual customer is not public d. Therefore, because the copyright holders will not succeed on the merits of public performance, denial of a preliminary injunction was affirmed. B. The Aereo Supreme Court Decision 1. Held: The correct definition of public performance is the underlying work approach of the broadcast companies that originally requested a preliminary injunction. a. Aereo transmits a performance whenever at least one subscriber views a program. b. Aereo s technological differences do not distinguish Aereo s system from cable systems which perform to the public under well settled law. c. It is irrelevant whether there is an individual communication and/or copy for each viewer. 2. Aereo s subscribers are the public because a. There are a large number of transmittal recipients who are unrelated and unknown to each other, and b. These subscribers do not receive performances as owners or possessors of the underlying works, and c. The copyright statutes expressly provides that subscriber i. may receive the same programs at different times and locations and ii. still remain within the scope of the exclusive right of public performances. 3. The Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings in the Second Circuit under its statutory interpretation of the transmittal provision. Page 20
21 C. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 2d 282, 2013 Dist. Lexis , 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1074 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), affirmed, Authors Guild v. Google Inc., No (2d Cir. October 16, 2015) 1. District court proceedings a. Google had not compensated copyright owners for its copying and/or display of verbatim written copyrighted works in a library project. b. District court decision i. Google s snippets without compensation or permission of the copyright owners, and ii. its complete digital copies of unauthorized written works for download. iii. were sufficiently transformative and in the public interest to qualify as fair use under the U.S. Copyright Act. 2. The Second Circuit review of the four fair use factors a. transformative purpose i. the court found that the purpose of the new search project was to assist in research with keywords and snippets, and not provide the texts of entire written works. ii. that Google is a for profit business was not determinative because the project was not commercial in nature. b. nature of copyrighted work: not determinative in this case or generally. c. Amount and substantial nature of the copied portion compared to the work as a whole i. although entire works were copied, ii. no works were exposed to the public in their entireties. d. Effect of copying upon potential market or value of the copyrighted work i. Google s snippets, which are discoverable by a word search, are isolated facts which are not protected by copyright. ii. the public can obtain limited data about books with allowing substantial text disclosure Trade Dress H. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.,nos , (Fed. Cir. 2015) A. Trade dress 1. may be Page 21
22 a. product configuration, or b. packaging, and 2. Similarly to trademarks, designates the source of a produce or service. Examples: interior décor of a restaurant; paper wrapper on a popsicle; bottle shape. 3. Product configuration is more likely to comprise functional features than packaging 4. However, protection of functional features is exclusively within the scope of U.S. utility patents 5. Reason: otherwise a person could exclusively own a useful feature forever a. instead of for a limited time pursuant to a patent, and b. which is twenty years from submission of the patent application. 6. Compare the limited period of patent enforceability to successive renewal of trade dress registration without a time limitation. B. Design patents 1. Protect the ornamental features of manufactured articles for a limited time duration. C. Litigation background 1. Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung for a. dilution of registered and unregistered trade dress and b. infringement of design patents for its iphones 3G and 3GS. 2. Apple was awarded damages for trade dress dilution as well as design patent infringement, and Samsung appealed. D. The Federal Circuit opinion 1. The Federal Circuit relied upon trade dress judicial decisions of the Ninth Circuit as well as U.S. Supreme Court decisions. a. a feature is functional if it (i) is essential to the use or purpose of the article or (ii) affects the cost or qualify of the article 2. In the Ninth Circuit a product configuration feature with any element of functionality is not protectable as trade dress. 3. The factors to evaluate in the Ninth Circuit when determining functionality/utility of a product configuration: a. the design yields a utilitarian advantage b. was advertised as including superior utilitarian features c. provides benefits that are not available in alternative designs, and d. provides significant cost-effective manufacture. Page 22
23 4. The justices concluded that Apple had not provided evidence that the phone features were promoted as superior in utility. 5. They also found that exterior features of both iphones, such as icons, icon arrangement and rounded corners, had a utilitarian purpose even though they were aesthetically pleasing. 6. In contrast, design patents protect ornamental features of manufactured items. 35 U.S.C.171(a). 7. Because design patents exclusively claim the ornamental features, then functional features need not be explicitly omitted from a jury instruction for design patent infringement. 8. The court affirmed the design patent infringement verdict. a. Rationale: most manufactured articles have a utilitarian purpose. b. Many of these articles also have ornamentation Example: ornamentation for a mirror 9. Rationale: We are now disregarding the utility of the icons and iphones as a whole. Instead we are looking only at the ornamentation of a useful object a. there is ornamentation of each icon and their arrangement upon a flat surface. b. that an iphone or its exterior surface features are useful is implicit but not relevant, because that is the nature of the protection of the design patent statute. Page 23
Patent System. University of Missouri. Dennis Crouch. Professor
State of the Patent System Dennis Crouch Professor University of Missouri History O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62 (1854) The Telegraph Patent Case waves roll over time courts crash volcanos erupt next
More informationPatent Portfolio Licensing
Patent Portfolio Licensing Circling the wagons while internally running a licensing program By: Nainesh Shah CAIL - 53rd Annual Conference on IP Law November 17, 2015, Plano, TX All information provided
More information2015 WL Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.
2015 WL 5675281 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division. SimpleAir, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Google Inc., et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-00011-JRG
More informationKey Developments in U.S. Patent Law
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY LITIGATION NEWSLETTER ISSUE 2014-1: JUNE 3, 2014 Key Developments in U.S. Patent Law In this issue: Fee Shifting Divided Infringement Patent Eligibility Definiteness
More information134 S.Ct Supreme Court of the United States. ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL et al.
134 S.Ct. 2347 Supreme Court of the United States ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL et al. No. 13 298. Argued March 31, 2014. Decided June 19, 2014. THOMAS, J., delivered
More informationCurrent Developments in U.S. Patent Law
Current Developments in U.S. Patent Law Fordham IP Institute: 2C. U.S. Patent Law Dimitrios T. Drivas April 8, 2015 U.S. Supreme Court 35 U.S.C. 285, Exceptional Case Standard for Award Octane Fitness
More informationSUPREME COURT IP CASE REVIEW
Bulletin August/September 2014 www.nyipla.org SUPREME COURT 2013-2014 IP CASE REVIEW By Charles R. Macedo, David P. Goldberg, Sandra A. Hudak, and Michael Sebba* INTRODUCTION In the past term, the Supreme
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE INVENTOR HOLDINGS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BED BATH & BEYOND INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 14-448-GMS I. INTRODUCTION MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Inventor
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly Register at www.acc.com/education/mym17 If you have any technical problems, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Recent Developments in Patent and Post-Grant
More informationRobert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212)
Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y. 10016 rkatz@evw.com Tel: (212) 561-3630 August 6, 2015 1 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1982) The patent laws
More informationThe Edge M&G s Intellectual Property White Paper
Supreme Court Restores Old Induced Patent Infringement Standard Requiring a Single Direct Infringer: The Court s Decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. In Limelight Networks,
More informationAIPPI World Intellectual Property Congress, Toronto. Workshop V. Patenting computer implemented inventions. Wednesday, September 17, 2014
AIPPI World Intellectual Property Congress, Toronto Workshop V Patenting computer implemented inventions Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Implications of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (United States Supreme Court
More informationPatent Eligibility Trends Since Alice
Patent Eligibility Trends Since Alice 2014 Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Nate Bailey Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP 35 U.S.C. 101 Whoever invents or discovers any new and
More informationCOMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION REGARDING CROWDSOURCING AND THIRD-PARTY PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS. Docket No.
COMMENTS OF THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION REGARDING CROWDSOURCING AND THIRD-PARTY PREISSUANCE SUBMISSIONS Docket No. PTO P 2014 0036 The Electronic Frontier Foundation ( EFF ) is grateful for this
More informationThe Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape
The Supreme Court decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics changes treble damage landscape Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 195 L. Ed. 2d 278 (2016), Shawn Hamidinia October 19, 2016
More informationRECENT US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON PATENT LAW AND THE INFLUENCE ON CURRENT PATENT PRACTICE AND POTENTIAL US PATENT LAW REFORM
RECENT US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON PATENT LAW AND THE INFLUENCE ON CURRENT PATENT PRACTICE AND POTENTIAL US PATENT LAW REFORM Hon. Garrett Brown Jr. Moderator Charles R. Macedo Partner Amster, Rothstein
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Defendants. CONTENT GUARD HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiff,
More informationHOT TOPICS IN PATENT LAW
HOT TOPICS IN PATENT LAW 2014 Jason Weil, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Barbara L. Mullin, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP Jimmie Johnson, Sr. Patent Counsel, Johnson Matthey Alex Plache, Sr. IP
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust,
Case No. 2013-1130 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RICHARD A WILLIAMSON, Trustee for At Home Bondholders Liquidating Trust, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, CITRIX ONLINE, LLC, CITRIX SYSTEMS,
More informationWebinar: How Could the U.S. Supreme Court s Recent Rewrite of the U.S. Patent Laws Affect You?
Webinar: How Could the U.S. Supreme Court s Recent Rewrite of the U.S. Patent Laws Affect You? February 25, 2015 12:00-1:15 p.m. EST Steven M. Auvil Partner and Leader, IP&T Litigation Practice Overview
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner, v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, et al., Respondents.
No. 13-298 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ALICE CORPORATION PTY. LTD., Petitioner, v. CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationProfessionalism/Ethics Series: Ethical Issues Arising While Conducting Discovery in 42 U.S.C Cases
Professionalism/Ethics Series: Ethical Issues Arising While Conducting Discovery in 42 U.S.C. 1983 Cases Seminar Topic: This course is designed to discuss common discovery tactics in the prosecution of
More informationUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC.
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 20 571.272.7822 Entered: August 26, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, INC., Petitioner, v.
More informationPATENT CASE LAW UPDATE
PATENT CASE LAW UPDATE Intellectual Property Owners Association 40 th Annual Meeting September 9, 2012 Panel Members: Paul Berghoff, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP Prof. Dennis Crouch, University
More informationU.S. Supreme Court Changes Standards for Attorney Fee Awards in Patent Cases by David R. Todd
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court issued decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. Both cases involve parties who
More informationUnited States District Court
Case:0-cv-0-JSW Document Filed0// Page of KLAUSTECH, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 Plaintiff, No. C 0-0 JSW v. ADMOB, INC., Defendant. / ORDER DENYING
More informationThis Webcast Will Begin Shortly
This Webcast Will Begin Shortly If you have any technical problems with the Webcast or the streaming audio, please contact us via email at: webcast@acc.com Thank You! 1 Quarterly Federal Circuit and Supreme
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION
United States District Court 0 VENDAVO, INC., v. Plaintiff, PRICE F(X) AG, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA I. INTRODUCTION Case No. -cv-00-rs ORDER DENYING
More information344 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLIX:343
Patent Law Divided Infringement of Method Claims: Federal Circuit Broadens Direct Infringement Liability, Retains Single Entity Restriction Akamai Technologies, Incorporated v. Limelight Networks, Incorporated,
More informationAnthony C Tridico, Ph.D.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Patents Case Law in the U.S. Anthony C Tridico, Ph.D. 18 November, 2015 1 1. Teva v. Sandoz Federal Circuit it must apply a clear error standard when
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE I. INTRODUCTION
Zillow, Inc. v. Trulia, Inc. Doc. 0 ZILLOW, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C-JLR v. Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT
More informationLIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI: LIMITING INDUCED INFRINGEMENT
LIMELIGHT V. AKAMAI: LIMITING INDUCED INFRINGEMENT MICHAEL A. CARRIER * In Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 1 the Supreme Court addressed the relationship between direct infringement
More informationMEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
ContourMed Inc. v. American Breast Care L.P. Doc. 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 17, 2016
More informationThe Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH
The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH Steven M. Auvil, Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Steve Auvil
More informationCOMMENTARY. Ten New Supreme Court Opinions Reshaping the Intellectual-Property Landscape
August 2014 COMMENTARY Ten New Supreme Court Opinions Reshaping the Intellectual-Property Landscape Thirty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard between 150 and 175 cases each year, but rarely accepted
More informationTERMS OF SERVICE Effective Date: March 30 th, 2017
TERMS OF SERVICE Effective Date: March 30 th, 2017 The following terms and conditions ( Terms of Service ) govern your access to, and use of sheshouldrun.org (the Service ) operated by She Should Run (
More informationCase No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and WILDTANGENT, INC.
Case No. 2010-1544 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WILDTANGENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
More informationThe Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation Defense
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Wonderland Of Patent Ineligibility As Litigation
More informationpìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë=
No. 12-398 IN THE pìéêéãé=`çìêí=çñ=íüé=råáíéç=pí~íéë= THE ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY, ET AL., v. Petitioners, MYRIAD GENETICS, INC., ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationBNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 83 PTCJ 967, 04/27/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
More informationWHITE PAPER. Key Patent Law Decisions of 2014
WHITE PAPER March 2015 Key Patent Law Decisions of 2014 The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in more and more patent law cases over the last several years and is on pace to hear twice as many
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent for an audio communication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA -WAY COMPUTING, INC., Plaintiff, vs. GRANDSTREAM NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. :-cv-0-rcj-pal ORDER This case arises out of the alleged infringement of a patent
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION CANRIG DRILLING TECHNOLOGY LTD., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-15-0656 TRINIDAD DRILLING L.P., Defendant. MEMORANDUM
More informationSupreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases
Supreme Court Addresses Fee Shifting in Patent Infringement Cases In Pair of Rulings, the Supreme Court Relaxes the Federal Circuit Standard for When District Courts May Award Fees in Patent Infringement
More information101 Patentability 35 U.S.C Patentable Subject Matter Spectrum. g Patentable Processes Before Bilski
Federal Circuit Review 101 Patentability Volume One Issue Four December 2008 In This Issue: g 35 U.S.C. 101 g Patentable Subject Matter Spectrum g Patentable Processes Before Bilski g In Re Nuijten Patentability
More informationBNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal
BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 89 PTCJ 823, 1/30/15. Copyright 2015 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION E2E PROCESSING, INC., Plaintiff, v. CABELA S INC., Defendant. Case No. 2:14-cv-36-JRG-RSP MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC MICROSOFT CORP.
2015-1863 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IPLEARN-FOCUS, LLC v. MICROSOFT CORP. Plaintiff-Appellant, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the
More informationLessons from the Recent Supreme Court Term: Ordinary Rules Apply in Patent Cases
Lessons from the Recent Supreme Court Term: Ordinary Rules Apply in Patent Cases If the judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit choose to reflect on the recently concluded
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION INTELLECTUAL VENTURES I LLC & INTELLECTUAL VENTURES II LLC, v. Plaintiffs, J. CREW GROUP, INC., Defendant. CASE NO.
More informationAdvance Planning in Litigation
Advance Planning in Litigation Seminar Topic: This material provides an in-depth examination of litigation and its many individual steps. When and how to take these steps should be decided with an eye
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ROTHSCHILD CONNECTED DEVICES INNOVATIONS, LLC v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. Case No. 2:15-cv-1431-JRG-RSP
More informationThe Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Post-Alice Blend Of Eligibility And Patentability
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 2:12-CV-180-WCB
TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc. Doc. 150 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION TQP DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 2:12-CV-180-WCB INTUIT
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case: 13-1564 Document: 138 140 Page: 1 Filed: 03/10/2015 2013-1564 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS AKTIEBOLOG AND SCA PERSONAL CARE INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
More informationMarch 28, Re: Supplemental Comments Related to Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. Dear Director Lee:
March 28, 2017 The Honorable Michelle K. Lee Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationCase 2:13-cv RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760
Case 2:13-cv-00791-RSP Document 143 Filed 05/22/15 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 6760 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION FREENY, ET AL. v. MURPHY OIL CORPORATION,
More informationThe Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
More informationHot Topics in U.S. IP Litigation
Hot Topics in U.S. IP Litigation December 3, 2015 Panel Discussion Introductions Sonal Mehta Durie Tangri Eric Olsen RPX Owen Byrd Lex Machina Chris Ponder Baker Botts Kathryn Clune Crowell & Moring Hot
More informationConnectivity Services Information Document
Connectivity Services Information Document Firm: Address: USER INFORMATION City: State: Zip: Firm: Address: BUSINESS CONTACT BILLING ADDRESS City: State: Zip: ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATORS TECHNICAL CONTACT BILLING
More informationCase Study: CLS Bank V. Alice Corp.
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Case Study: CLS Bank V. Alice Corp. Law360, New York
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN VOCALTAG LTD. and SCR ENGINEERS LTD., v. Plaintiffs, AGIS AUTOMATISERING B.V., OPINION & ORDER 13-cv-612-jdp Defendant. This is
More informationPaper Entered: October 16, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 7 571-272-7822 Entered: October 16, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SUPERCELL OY, Petitioner, v. GREE, INC., Patent Owner.
More informationSITE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ISO 9001 EXPLAINED
SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR ISO 9001 EXPLAINED Per the ISO 9000 Checklist web site at the internet address iso9000checklist.com, placement of an order and purchase of this product indicates that you have
More informationPatent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and
Patent Litigation With Non-Practicing Entities: Strategies, Trends and Techniques ALFRED R. FABRICANT 20 th Annual Fordham Intellectual Property Conference April 12, 2012 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP Leveling
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES GENERAL
Present: The Honorable Andrea Keifer Deputy Clerk JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Not Reported Court Reporter / Recorder Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Not Present Attorneys Present
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,
More informationWEBSITE TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT
WEBSITE TERMS OF USE AGREEMENT Welcome to http://ncoms.org (the NCOMS Website ), which is owned and operated by the North Carolina Oncology Managers Society d/b/a North Carolina Oncology Management Society.
More informationUS Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Patent Eligibility of Computer- Implemented Inventions
US Supreme Court Issues Important Opinion on Patent Eligibility of Computer- Implemented Inventions Andy Pincus Partner +1 202 263 3220 apincus@mayerbrown.com Stephen E. Baskin Partner +1 202 263 3364
More informationTerms & Conditions. Magnum Expression Award Terms and Conditions. 1. Use of this website (the Site )
Terms & Conditions Magnum Expression Award Terms and Conditions 1. Use of this website (the Site ) This Site is operated by Magnum Photos, Inc. ( Magnum ), located at 151 West 25 th Street, New York, New
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE. THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Motion for Judgment on the
Appistry, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al Doc. 0 APPISTRY, INC., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE CASE NO. C- MJP v. Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA. Plaintiff, Defendants.
POWERbahn, LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Case No. :1-cv-00-MMD-WGC 1 1 1 1 v. Foundation Fitness LLC, Wahoo Fitness L.L.C., and Giant Bicycle, Inc., I. SUMMARY Plaintiff, Defendants.
More informationLatham & Watkins Litigation Department
Number 1391 September 12, 2012 Client Alert Latham & Watkins Litigation Department Federal Circuit Holds that Liability for Induced Infringement Requires Infringement of a Patent, But No Single Entity
More informationSignificant Patent Topics in the Past Year
Significant Patent Topics in the Past Year Presented by:!! Peter E. Heuser!!Brian G. Bodine!!Schwabe, Williamson!Lane Powell!! & Wyatt!!! September 2, 2015! PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER 2 Alice Corp. v. CLS
More informationUSE OF ANY CWGS ENTERPRISES, LLC WEB SITE OR MOBILE APP SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS OF USE.
Terms of Use USE OF ANY CWGS ENTERPRISES, LLC WEB SITE OR MOBILE APP SIGNIFIES YOUR AGREEMENT TO THESE TERMS OF USE. PLEASE READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY AS THEY MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. IN PARTICULAR,
More informationThe Changing Landscape of Patent Litigation: Fee Awards and Exceptional Case Status
The Changing Landscape of Patent Litigation: Fee Awards and Exceptional Case Status Date: June 17, 2014 By: Stephen C. Hall The number of court pleadings filed in the District Court for the Highmark/Allcare
More informationDirect Phone Number: Last Name: Title: Alliance Primary Contact (if different than authorized signatory contact): First Name:
Thank you for your interest in the CommonWell Health Alliance. To help us process your membership application, please complete the below information along with your signed Membership agreement, which requires
More informationMultimedia over Coax Alliance Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy
Multimedia over Coax Alliance Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy 1. BACKGROUND The Alliance has been formed as a non-profit mutual benefit corporation for the purpose of developing and promoting
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED MAY 2 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ROYCE MATHEW, No. 15-56726 v. Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07832-RGK-AGR
More informationBrief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period to
Brief Summary of Precedential Patent Case Law For the Period 11-9-2017 to 12-13-2017 By Rick Neifeld, Neifeld IP Law, PC This article presents a brief summary of relevant precedential points of law during
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION CHARLES C. FREENY III, BRYAN E. FREENY, and JAMES P. FREENY, v. Plaintiffs, FOSSIL GROUP, INC., Defendant. Case No.
More informationMEMORANDUM AND ORDER - versus - 14-cv Plaintiff, Defendant.
Joao Control & Monitoring Systems, LLC v. Slomin's, Inc. Doc. 32 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FOR ONLINE PUBLICATION JOAO CONTROL AND MONITORING SYSTEMS, LLC., SLOMIN
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit LUMEN VIEW TECHNOLOGY LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. FINDTHEBEST.COM, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2015-1275, 2015-1325 Appeals from the United States District
More information2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative
2011 Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome Models used are not clients but may be representative of clients 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 2800, Chicago,
More informationAkamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.: 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 24 Issue 1 Fall 2013 Article 8 Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.: 692 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Patrick McMahon Follow
More informationIP Strategies for Software Tech Companies
IP Strategies for Software Tech Companies Amy Chun Russell Jeide Ted Cannon September 11, 2014 Roadmap Key IP Concerns for Software Tech Companies New Post-Grant Proceedings for Challenging Patents Impact
More information2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
657 F.3d 1323 United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. ULTRAMERCIAL, LLC and Ultramercial, Inc., Plaintiffs Appellants, v. HULU, LLC, Defendant, and WildTangent, Inc., Defendant Appellee. No. 2010
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION CASE NO ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION AUTOFORM ENGINEERING GMBH, CASE NO. 10-14141 v. PLAINTIFF, ARTHUR J. TARNOW SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY
More informationSupreme Court Invites Solicitor General s View on Safe Harbor of the Hatch-Waxman Act
Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General s View on Safe Harbor of the Hatch-Waxman Act Prepared By: The Intellectual Property Group On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court invited the Solicitor
More informationThe Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.
The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. Seminar Topic: This program defines the Wage Payment Act and describes, in detail, how it requires every employer to pay full and final
More informationPrometheus v. Mayo. George R. McGuire. Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC June 6, 2012
George R. McGuire Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC June 6, 2012 gmcguire@bsk.com 1 Background The Decision Implications The Aftermath Questions 2 Background Prometheus & Mayo The Patents-At-Issue The District
More informationCase 1:13-cv WGY Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Case 1:13-cv-12632-WGY Document 1 Filed 10/17/13 Page 1 of 9 SANDERS LAW, PLLC Douglas Sanders, Esq. (625140) 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, New York 11530 Telephone: (516) 203-7600 Facsimile:
More informationJS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Hemopet, CASE NO. CV JLS (JPRx) Plaintiff, vs.
Case :-cv-0-jls-jpr Document Filed // Page of Page ID #: 0 Hemopet, vs. Plaintiff, Hill s Pet Nutrition, Inc., Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS- CASE NO. CV -0-JLS
More informationSENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL
SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. Plaintiff, HTC AMERICA, INC. and HTC CORPORATION, Defendants. I. INTRODUCTION HONORABLE RICHARD
More informationThe Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq.
The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq. S eminar Topic: This program defines the Wage Payment Act and describes, in detail, how it requires every employer to pay full and final
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 OPEN TEXT S.A., Plaintiff, v. ALFRESCO SOFTWARE LTD, et al., Defendants. Case No. -cv-0-jd ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS Re: Dkt. No. 0
More informationPedestal Search Terms and Conditions of Service:
Suite 300-100 Broadview Ave, Toronto, ON, M4M 3H3 (416) 545-1467 Pedestal Search Terms and Conditions of Service: WHEREAS these terms and conditions govern Pedestal s services and agreements between Pedestal
More information