(949) 362-0100
Tag: <span>party</span>

Tag: party

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

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...

Attacking An Issued Patent Without Filing Suit

Standards for Third Party Review of Issued Patents The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act replaced inter partes reexamination with a new proceeding similarly called an inter partes review proceeding. This process took effect on September 16, 2012, one year after enactment of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Part of the changes implemented into the newer proceeding include the standard required...

Proposed Legislation May Now Permit Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation

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...

Petronas v. GoDaddy.com: No Contributory Liability for Cybersquatting Under the ACPA

In a case involving the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the ACPA), the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with a lower court’s decision that the ACPA does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting. Under the ACPA, cybersquatting is defined as registering, trafficking, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from...

In "Everything's Bigger in Texas" Adage, Everything Includes Patent Infringement Lawsuits

Innovative persons, groups, or businesses that believe they have a patent-worthy invention often submit a non-provisional patent application to the USPTO, typically through in-house or hired patent attorneys. After a hard-fought battle with a designated patent examiner, an applying party may be lucky enough to receive the hallowed “notice of allowance,” signifying the application’s acceptance...

Slaying the Troll: How The Innovation Act of 2013 Could Help Combat Patent Trolling

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...

Unscrupulous Copyist, Beware the Doctrine of Equivalents

In Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Mayne Pharma (USA), Inc., Case No. 06-1118 (Fed. Cir., Nov. 15, 2006), pharmaceutical company, Mayne Pharma, Inc. (Mayne), lost an appeal from a district court’s decision finding their infringing product was specifically designed to mimic their competitor’s improved anesthetic. But although Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. (Abraxis) ultimately won their patent infringement...