Blog

Alice Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank holding that patents directed to schemes or methods of mitigating settlement risks in the exchange of financial obligations between two parties claimed unpatentable subject matter.  Although the patents recited system claims implementing the method on a computer system, the Supreme Court held that merely reciting a generic computer in the claims does not make an otherwise abstract idea patent eligible.  The decision re-affirms long-standing Supreme Court precedent with respect to the un-patentability of abstract ideas and reiterates the importance of drafting the patent application on such methods in a way that takes the claimed subject matter out of the abstract idea category and puts it into the implementation category.  Without an adequate disclosure of a specialized implementation, the patent application may be rejected by the patent office and, even if the application is granted, any patent obtained…

Continue Reading →

An “Exceptional Case” Need Not Be so Very Exceptional Anymore

In a patent suit involving a patent covering an elliptical trainer exercise machine, the US Supreme Court significantly changed a long-established standard for awarding attorney fees to the prevailing party.  Under the old standard, the trial court had the discretion to order the losing party to pay the prevailing party’s attorney fees if it found that the case was “exceptional.”  A case was regarded as “exceptional” if it was “objectively baseless and brought in subjective bad faith.”  This is a tough standard to meet.  The Supreme Court has now lowered the bar so that an “exceptional case” is one that either “stands out from others” with regard to the party’s litigation position (considering the law and the facts of the case), or is litigated in an unreasonable manner.  The Supreme Court instructed that the trial court should look at the totality of the circumstances, and that there were no fixed…

Continue Reading →

Limelight: 9-0 Supreme Court Reversal

There was a brief glimmer of hope for those patents with claims covering steps performed by more than one entity. But once again the Supreme Court has chastised the Federal Circuit for not following its prior precedent.  Specifically, there can be no active inducement of infringement unless there is first direct infringement, and direct infringement does not exist if more than one entity is performing the steps. This case illustrates the importance of drafting claims that are directed to single actor and thinking about how infringers might try to design around the claims by having a third party perform one or more of the claimed steps. Review LimelightYellowCopy for the Supreme Court’s opinion.      

Continue Reading →

Cybersquatting and Trademark Complaints Must Provide Factual Support under Iqbal/Twombly

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a cybersquatting case we had on behalf of one of our clients. The judge agreed with our argument that the mark was merely descriptive and that no facts were alleged to support secondary meaning in the one year period between plaintiff’s first use of the mark and our client’s registration of the domain name. So while dismissals at the pleading stage are rare, it is important to consider in all cases whether a motion to dismiss is appropriate, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Iqbal and Twombly requiring that plaintiffs provide factual support rather than just mere conclusory statements. Click here for a link to the Court’s order of dismissal.

Continue Reading →

There You Go Again – Infringing my Patent!

Have you ever taken someone to court, based on ongoing offending activities of that person, won the case, and then found he/she was once again engaging in “the same” offensive activity?  If so, you are probably aware that a Court Order is enforceable through a “Contempt Action” to prevent the person from engaging in the activity.  Well, assume you own a patent, and a competitor infringes that patent – an ongoing tortious activity.  Assume further that you sue the competitor in Federal District Court for patent infringement.  And, during litigation, the competitor concedes the product it makes and markets infringes (some of) the patent claims.  The district court issues an Order with an injunction enjoining the competitor from engaging in any further infringing activity, such as marketing or making the infringing product. Later, to your surprised chagrin, the competitor starts selling a “slightly altered” version of the product!  What to…

Continue Reading →

Practical Intellectual Property Practices for Corporate Clients

Imagine the embarrassment of having an email discovered during litigation where one of your employees exclaims that your new product probably infringes a competitor’s patent he has only just perused. Of course, it is sound business practice for companies to routinely review their competitors’ published patent applications and issued patents.    Armed with this information, your company can make strategic business decisions.  However, your company should take steps to avoid creating potentially harmful documents, emails and other correspondence that could be used against it in litigation. If your company has personnel involved in (a) reviewing the competitors’ published patent applications and issued patents and/or (b) monitoring the prosecution of a competitor’s patent application, then be sure to implement some simple policies on how to document and report the findings and concerns. Those policies should also address which individuals are to receive such reports and communications.  Finally, the policy should sensitize the…

Continue Reading →

Is Your Invention Really New? Summarizing Novelty under the New U.S. Patent Law

In a race, it goes without saying that the first person to pass the finish line wins.  But, what would happen if the location of the finish line were suddenly moved back?  To a certain extent, that is exactly what has happened to U.S. patent applicants.  On March 16, 2013, the U.S. transitioned from a first-to-invent patent system to a first-to-file patent system. Now imagine that in addition to the finish line being moved back, runners are told that the rules of the race have changed.  In particular, the bases for disqualification, say, false starts and inappropriate contact, have been modified.  In light of the new definition of “novelty” under U.S. patent law, it is as though both the location of the finish line has moved and the rules for running the race have been modified. If innovators wish to remain competitive in the race to obtain patents, it is…

Continue Reading →

The Highway Goes Global

Followers of our newsletter are familiar with the evolution of the Patent Prosecution Highway (“PPH”), from bilateral agreements providing for the acceleration of a patent examination in the office of second filing after the office of first filing finds allowable subject matter, to PCT PPH which allows the same acceleration based on a favorable examination in the international stage.  Now, the PPH evolution continues with the new Global Patent Prosecution Highway (“GPPH”), providing applicants with another cost and time saving tool for the management of global patent prosecution. As previously reported, the PPH program was developed to promote fast-track patent examination procedures and allow patent offices from around the world to take advantage of work already done by other offices.  The PPH was one of the initiatives undertaken by the USPTO to help with the always-increasing load of patent examinations. The PPH program as initially constructed involves bilateral agreements between…

Continue Reading →

The Neglected Design Patent?

When people talk about patents, they generally mean a “utility patent.”  To date, over 8 million utility patents have issued in the United States.  In contrast, only about 680,000 design patents have ever issued.  Why that discrepancy?  It’s hard to fathom, especially after Apple Corp. recently won a $1.05 billion jury verdict for design patent infringement against Samsung Electronics in the ongoing battle for cell-phone supremacy.[1]  So, the oft-neglected and overlooked design patent is clearly “no lightweight” in high-stakes patent litigation between heavyweights.  Nonetheless, the utility patent has almost entirely subsumed the entire concept of “a patent” in the public mind. While a utility patent provides exclusive rights in useful technology, its neglected design patent cousin provides exclusive rights in “ornamental designs.”  As marketing executives know, the ornamental design of a product is often as significant, or even more compelling, as the useful features of the product, especially in the…

Continue Reading →

Texas Fashionably Late to the Uniform Trade Secrets Act Party

Significant changes in the law in Texas with respect to trade secrets went into effect September 1, 2013, with Texas becoming the 48th state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.  Previously, there was no central repository for Texas trade secret law, as it was a combination of the common law, restatements, and the Texas Theft Liability Act. The Act changes Texas trade secret law in a number of material respects and applies to any alleged misappropriation occurring on or after the effective date.  The extent of the changes will be determined by the courts as they interpret the Act but the Act is believed by many to eliminate a number of ambiguities that existed in the prior trade secret laws of Texas.  The changes will make trade secret protection broader in some circumstances and narrower in others, but will likely give more clarity to what is and is not…

Continue Reading →

CLS Bank Patent Analysis and Claims Salvaging

The courts have been particularly active recently with respect to the question of what is patentable subject matter.  Despite this activity, there has been no real guidance provided by the courts to practitioners. In CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., the Federal Circuit found the claimed computer-related subject matter not patentable.  Unfortunately, there were seven different opinions in the case containing at least three different approaches to determining whether particular subject matter is patentable. While the Federal Circuit and commentators have concentrated on the claims formation and issues regarding §101 patentable subject matter, the real issue not addressed by either party are the deficiencies in the SPECIFICATION and DRAWINGS.  Without a properly written specification with supporting drawings that define the invention, there is no hope of generating supporting claims that meet the court’s requirements for §101 patentable subject matter.  Thus, when properly analyzed, the issue in the CLS case is one…

Continue Reading →

Black Gold: Patent Battle Royale Moving From Silicon Valley to Midland, Texas? | Intellectual Property in the Oil & Gas Industry

We have all heard of the patent battles between tech giants Apple and Samsung.  It is easy to imagine the countless patents that protect the new iPhone and Galaxy smart phones.  However, intellectual property is not limited to the Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerbergs of the world.  A huge amount of intellectual property is being developed, and protected, in the oil field.  In fact, the next major patent dispute is more likely to involve a method of fracking than a processor on a smart phone.  The reason, in part, is that as “easy oil” reserves become more and more rare, oil and gas companies are developing incredible technological solutions in order to harness oil, which was previously believed unreachable.  In solving these complex problems, they are developing vast amounts of intellectual property.  Oil and gas companies of all sizes need to begin protecting their intellectual property because their competitors are. …

Continue Reading →

The Proposed Unified European Union Patent System

by James H. Ortega The European Patent Organization has been developing a unified European Union (EU) patent system, which will include both a unitary EU patent, issued from the European Patent Office (EPO), as well as a Unified Patent Court (UPC) system for harmonized enforcement of unitary EU patents. Although a specific date for implementation of the proposed UPC system has not yet been established, the unitary patent process will go into effect January 14, 2014, with the UPC system likely following sometime in later 2014 or 2015. Thus, despite the complaints regarding both of the new systems, the upcoming implementation of at least the unitary EU patent system requires patent practitioners involved in European patent practice to become familiar with the system in order to properly advise their clients.

Continue Reading →

Prior Art Recapture Under the AIA – What You Don’t Know Can’t Help You

by Colin P. Cahoon Often overlooked when discussing the myriad changes wrought by the America Invents Act (AIA), 35 USC Section 102(b)(2)(C) deserves close scrutiny by any company that hires potential inventors or that enters into joint development agreements with third parties. This new provision created by the AIA provides such companies with a powerful tool for removing potentially harmful prior art from consideration by the USPTO against patent applications that such companies might file in the future. To work properly, though, 102(b)(2)(C) needs to be considered when negotiating a joint development agreement and when first hiring any new potential inventor employees.

Continue Reading →

The Federal Circuit’s En Banc Opinion on Patentability Under Section 101 – It’s Splitsville!

by Gregory Perrone This past Spring, in CLS Bank International, CLS Services Ltd. v. Alice Corp, Pty Ltd. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. May 10, 2013), a splintered en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated its three-member panel’s reversal of the district court’s judgment and affirmed a grant of summary judgment of invalidity. The en banc panel held that a patent claiming a computerized system and methods for eliminating settlement risk are not eligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. While the panel’s six opinions and 127 pages provide a menagerie of commentary on why subject matter may or may not be patent eligible, little guidance is offered to inventors, patent counsel or the courts on how to determine whether subject matter is patentable.

Continue Reading →

Myriad Gene Patent Decision: A New Era in DNA Diagnostic Testing?

by Shaukat A. Karjeker In the race to map the human genome, many of the organizations involved obtained patents on gene sequences that they identified.  These patents were granted regardless of whether the applicant had determined any role or function of the sequence.  As a consequence, other researchers were effectively “blocked out” of research and development on the patented DNA sequences, unless they were able to negotiate a license. The unanimous opinion by Hon. J. Clarence Thomas, in Association for Molecular Pathology, et al v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et al. completely changes the biotech and medical research landscape: DNA is a naturally-occurring composition and therefore not patentable.  With a single stroke, the Court has opened the flood gates for the development of customized gene-based medicine.  All issued patent claims to DNA sequences are now invalid, the DNA sequences are effectively “in the public domain,” and the sequences may be used in…

Continue Reading →

Judicial Profile: Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver

by Vincent J. Allen A profile on Magistrate Judge Renee Harris Toliver, the first African-American to sit on the federal magistrate bench in the Northern District of Texas, as published in the May 2013 issue of the Dallas Bar Association’s Headnotes.

Continue Reading →

Trademark Infringement: Can I Bid on My Competitors’ Trademarks as Adwords?

By Vincent Allen and PJ Putnam With the use of search engines by consumers to find products and websites becoming more prominent, search engine optimization has become an important part of the marketing plan for large and small businesses alike. For those companies that do not want to take the time or put in the effort to improve their SEO for certain keywords organically, purchasing keywords, also known as Adwords, from Google or other search engines can put a website on the first page of search results for a particular keyword overnight. By “purchasing,” we mean the submission of the high bid for the use of a keyword or campaign for a specific time period and geographic location.

Continue Reading →

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy!: Reducing Patent Fees for the Little Guy

by Bobby W. Braxton It’s easy to root for the little guy.  Whether we are rooting for Rudy Ruettiger to take the field in Rudy, or for inventor Robert Kearns when he takes on Big Auto in the movie Flash of Genius (the Rudy equivalent for patent attorneys), we root for success stories.  A truly American success story is an invention that allows the smallest inventor to compete with the largest corporation.  Unfortunately, while individual inventors dream about inventing the next big thing, the costs and fees involved in filing a patent application often make these dreams prohibitively expensive.  According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), less than 20% of the patents granted in 2011 were awarded to so-called small entities, individuals or businesses with less than 500 employees.  How is the little guy supposed to compete?  The USPTO and the American Invents Act (“AIA”) have offered a few avenues to make…

Continue Reading →

Trademark Basics: What’s in a Name?

by Mandy K. Jenkins Is the name of a new business or product really that important to its success?  As Shakespeare would say, “that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”  No offense to Shakespeare, but most people would agree that when starting a new business or launching a new product, the name is very important.  The name gives people a first impression and is associated with the product or business forever.  So choosing the right name is paramount.  When deciding upon the name for a new company or product, you want to select a name that can be protected as a trademark, ensure your chosen name will not infringe another’s trademark, and take the proper steps to protect your trademark.

Continue Reading →