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 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,...
20 Jan 2014
Last year, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in a trademark case that in essence had nothing to do with trademarks. The original battle at the lower court was over a line of shoes and trademark owned by Nike called Air Force 1s, which another company, Already, claimed was an invalid trademark. Already designs...
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. §...
13 Dec 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...
27 Nov 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...
4 Nov 2013
When done correctly, broadening the claims allows a patent owner to broaden the scope of the patent in order to capture design-arounds or perhaps new products, which are not covered by the previous claims. While it is proper to broaden the scope of a patent under certain circumstances and procedures, the broadened claims must be...
1 Nov 2013
Apple, Microsoft, and others, team up to battle Google, Samsung, and several Android smartphone makers. Headlines on various reports appearing all over the net today are referring to a recently filed action for patent infringement as an all out nuclear war among technology giants. The suit names “Rockstar Bidco” – a group consisting of none other...
28 Oct 2013
The Innovation Act of 2013, if passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Obama, could beget important and much-needed change for the patent litigation industry, especially as it pertains to so-called patent trolling. Patent trolling is a practice in which a group, typically a large corporation, procures an impressive portfolio of patents...
21 Oct 2013
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision holding Sturm did not infringe Keurig’s patents, because Keurig’s patent rights were exhausted. Patent exhaustion is an affirmative defense to a claim of patent infringement, which is triggered, in some instances as in this case, when a patent owner authorizes...
14 Oct 2013
In a case that should serve as a warning to anyone looking to overcome Office Actions by making misleading or false statements to the PTO, an infringement action was dismissed after a patent was found unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during its prosecution. A patent involving wireless transmission of caller identification information, owned by Intellect...
20 Jun 2013
On October 19, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (the Board) decision to deny registration of the mark “Rebel” for grass seed on the grounds that the mark is a generic designation of the seed and therefore not entitled to registration. Pennington Seed, Inc....