Obviousness Archives - Jafari Law Group | California Employment Litigation & Patent Lawyers

One Plus One Does Not Equal New. The Federal Circuit Invalidates I/P Engine’s Patents

August 15 2014

I/P Engine brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Google and several other defendants for infringing on several of its patents. The patents at issue relate to a method for filtering Internet search results. The patents’ main operational features determine the relevance of an Internet search by, for example, extracting text from a web page (known …

Continue reading “One Plus One Does Not Equal New. The Federal Circuit Invalidates I/P Engine’s Patents”

$30 Million Verdict Against Google Overturned Due (in part) to Prior Art Admissions in Patents

August 15 2014

On August 15, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al, reversed a lower court’s decision granting I/P Engine, Inc. an award for over $30 million in damages against Google, AOL, and Target for patent infringement. The Appeals Court’s reversal was based on …

Continue reading “$30 Million Verdict Against Google Overturned Due (in part) to Prior Art Admissions in Patents”

Galderma Labs Patents Invalidated for Obviousness

December 19 2013

Last week, on December 11, 2013, in Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Bryson, Prost*) reversed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patents No. 7,579,377, No. 7,737,181, No. 7,834,060, No. 7,838,558, and No. 7,868,044, (the Patents) were not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § …

Continue reading “Galderma Labs Patents Invalidated for Obviousness”

Patent Search- What is A Search and Why it Makes Sense to Perform One

October 28 2013

In the context of obtaining a patent, a “search” is a professional search of various online databases for inventions that are similar to your invention. The name of such searches varies within our industry, but at our office we simply call such searches a “Patent Search,” and is also often called a novelty search. Patent …

Continue reading “Patent Search- What is A Search and Why it Makes Sense to Perform One”

TSM Test for Obviousness Argued Before the Supreme Court

January 03 2013

On November 28, 2006, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the case of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. The case itself concerned a broadly worded patent claim that the United States Patent Office (USPTO) told the Supreme Court was invalid under Section 103 of the Patent Act and was issued in …

Continue reading “TSM Test for Obviousness Argued Before the Supreme Court”

In Defense of M-S-T: The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dyestar v. C.H. Patrick

December 06 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the Dystar Textilfarben v. C.H. Patrick Co. and Bann Quimica decision that defended the use of the “motivation-suggesting teaching” (hereinafter: “M-S-T”) test in order to determine a finding of obviousness in the matter of patented inventions. The opinion is of particular interest …

Continue reading “In Defense of M-S-T: The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dyestar v. C.H. Patrick”

IP Now

One Plus One Does Not Equal New. The Federal Circuit Invalidates I/P Engine’s Patents

$30 Million Verdict Against Google Overturned Due (in part) to Prior Art Admissions in Patents

Galderma Labs Patents Invalidated for Obviousness

Patent Search- What is A Search and Why it Makes Sense to Perform One

TSM Test for Obviousness Argued Before the Supreme Court

In Defense of M-S-T: The Federal Circuit’s Decision in Dyestar v. C.H. Patrick