12 Mar 2021
When most people want to file a patent, they do so with one major goal in mind: making money—or at least, protecting their idea from OTHERS making money off of it! Patents can range from obscure, niche applications that may never be used, to schematics and designs of products that can and will change the...
10 Dec 2014
In this POS patent infringement lawsuit, CardSoft sued VeriFone and others asserting infringement of its software patents. Both companies are in the point of sale (POS) industry that consumers recognize as credit card readers, and also the industry that Apple is seeking to gain market share in with its new concept of Apple Pay. At...
16 Nov 2014
This past summer the Supreme Court ruled against Aereo, Inc. in the case of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.[1] The decision hinged on the meaning behind two critical terms of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.): “perform” and “publicly”. The Court first had to decide whether the actions by Aereo constitute a performance as...
4 Nov 2014
The American system is unlike many others when it comes to paying the attorney’s fees of the winner in litigation. Patent cases have always been a little different in that the relevant statutes allowed for the district court judge to consider a fee motion in favor of the winner in a patent infringement suit. Until...
5 Sep 2014
On September 3, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s finding that the claims to a patent owned by buySAFE, Inc. are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 101. Perhaps more significantly, the Court of Appeals used the approach recently affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in...
24 Aug 2014
On August 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s findings that Research In Motion Limited and Research In Motion Corporation (BlackBerry) did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,970,917 (“’917 patent”), owned at the time of suit by MFormation Technologies, Inc. and mFormation Software Technologies, Inc. (MST). After a jury trial...
15 Aug 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...
15 Aug 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...
8 Aug 2014
In 2005, a pharmaceutical corporation named ScriptPro obtained a patent on a device relating to an automated prescription container dispensing system that automatically fills and labels pill bottles. See Scriptpro, LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc., 2013-1561, 2014 WL 3844192, at * 1 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 6, 2014); COLLATING UNIT FOR USE WITH A CONTROL CENTER...
8 Aug 2014
In addressing whether a competitor’s patent infringement suit and filing of a Citizen Petition with the Federal Drug Administration can result in the violation of antitrust laws, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding that the patentee’s assertion of the validity of its patents was a sham. The court...
8 Aug 2014
In Amdocs Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014) the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reversed the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in a case between competitors in the so called data mediation software industry. The case involves Amdocs Israel Limited (Amdocs), which sued Openet Telecom,...
19 Dec 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. §...