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

"Write Once, Run Anywhere" – POS Patent Infringement Lawsuit Reversed on Appeal

December 10 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 …

Continue reading “"Write Once, Run Anywhere" – POS Patent Infringement Lawsuit Reversed on Appeal”

Public performance under the Copyright Act

November 16 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 …

Continue reading “Public performance under the Copyright Act”

Message to Patent Trolls: Lose & You Will Pay Attorney’s Fees

November 04 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 …

Continue reading “Message to Patent Trolls: Lose & You Will Pay Attorney’s Fees”

Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.- Another Business Method Patent Invalidated

September 05 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 …

Continue reading “Buysafe, Inc. v. Google, Inc.- Another Business Method Patent Invalidated”

$147.2 Million Jury Award against Blackberry Overturned

August 24 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 …

Continue reading “$147.2 Million Jury Award against Blackberry Overturned”

$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”

Foreign Marketing Materials Relevant to Patent Infringement

August 08 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, …

Continue reading “Foreign Marketing Materials Relevant to Patent Infringement”

Markush Claims – What Are They, When Should I Use One, and How Do I Use One?

June 04 2014

While many diverse areas of patent law are important to practicing competently, it is the claims which share center stage. It is the claims which define and carve out the scope of the invention. During the patent prosecution phase, it is the claims which are fought over. And again during patent infringement suits, it is …

Continue reading “Markush Claims – What Are They, When Should I Use One, and How Do I Use One?”

Amazon's Anticipatory Shipping Patent Explained

February 25 2014

At the tail end of 2013, Amazon (AMZN) obtained issuance of an interesting patent, claiming a system and method of anticipatory shipping, i.e. shipping one or more items in your general direction before you even purchase said items. The patent, entitled “Method and system for anticipatory package shipping,” can be read here. Of my own …

Continue reading “Amazon's Anticipatory Shipping Patent Explained”

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”

Proposed Legislation May Now Permit Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation

December 13 2013

Currently in patent infringement cases (including declaratory judgment cases), 35 U.S.C. section 285 reads, “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” (emphasis added). As of December 5, 2013, House Representative Bob Goodlatte’s “Innovation Act,” among other changes, seeks to amend this fee shifting statute to have the non-prevailing …

Continue reading “Proposed Legislation May Now Permit Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation”

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.: Permanent Injunction Unlikely

November 27 2013

Back in July of 2012, a jury returned a powerful verdict against Samsung, in a suit filed by Apple (AAPL), claiming Samsung infringed on several patents, and diluted Apple’s trade dress for the iPhone. That jury found that 26 Samsung smartphones and tablets infringed Apple patents and that six Samsung smartphones diluted Apple’s registered iPhone …

Continue reading “Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.: Permanent Injunction Unlikely”

IP Now