The Quest for a Meaningful Threshold of Invention: Atlantic Works v. Brady (1883)
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
2d ago
..read more
Visit website
Law School Casebook Review: Patent Law Fundamentals (Brean & Snow) 2d Ed
Patently-O
by David
3d ago
By David Hricik, Mercer Law School I realize most readers aren’t law professors, so you can stop now… I have taught IP courses for years and often the books seek to teach the subject through cases, which is a very difficult way to learn it.  This book — Patent Law: Fundamentals of Doctrine and Policy (Carolina Academic Press) — does a great job of using cases to illustrate key points, but often provides descriptive text and problems, and does so in a practical and concise way, and a way geared toward current learning trends. I’ll be brief, but with respect to its organization, the authors ..read more
Visit website
The Obviousness Hurdle
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
3d ago
by Dennis Crouch The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether to grant certiorari in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. Teva Pharmaceuticals. I have been closely watching this obviousness case that could have significant implications beyond the pharmaceutical industry.  The following essay provides an overview of the key legal issues at stake and introduces Teva’s recent briefing. The case centers on the proper legal standard for determining when an invention is “obvious” and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  In particular, Vanda argues that the Federal Circuit has unduly raised the ..read more
Visit website
Apple loses Mandamus Transfer Action This Time
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
by Dennis Crouch In re Apple Inc., No. 24-111 (Fed. Cir. 2024) Federal Circuit has denied Apple’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a patent infringement case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. The case, Carbyne Biometrics, LLC v. Apple Inc., involves six patents related to authentication and fraud reduction technologies used in Apple devices. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,929,512; 11,475,105; 11,514,138; 9,972,010; 10,713,656; 11,526,886. Back in May 2023, Carbyne filed the lawsuit in W.D. Tex. Austin division and the case was assigned to Judge ..read more
Visit website
Reviving the Permanent Injunction Inquiry: Federal Circuit Rejects a Categorical Rule Against Injunctions for Licensing Patentees
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
by Dennis Crouch In a nonprecedential disposition issued March 20, 2024, the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of a permanent injunction to a patent owner, finding the lower court read Federal Circuit precedent too broadly to categorically preclude injunctions in situations where a patentee has a history of licensing the patent to third parties. In re California Expanded Metal Products Co., No. 2023-1140 (Fed Cir. Mar. 20, 2024). The decision reaffirms that the equitable framework laid out by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. requires a case-by-case analysi ..read more
Visit website
More on Reasonable Expectation of Success from the Federal Circuit
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
by Dennis Crouch In Sisvel v. TCT Mobile and Honeywell, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s IPR findings that the claims are obvious.  The non-precedential decision provides further insight into the Federal Circuit’s reasonable expectation of success test. Sisvel’s U.S. Patent 8,971,279 covers a method of sending Semi-Persistent Scheduling (SPS) deactivation signals that essentially “piggyback” on existing messages. SPS is a technique used in LTE networks to more efficiently allocate radio resources to user equipment (UE) for periodic transmissions, such as Voice over IP (VoI ..read more
Visit website
Inventorship Correction Affirmed for Patent on Intermodal Container for Transporting Gaseous Fluids
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
by Dennis Crouch In a recent nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court ruling ordering the correction of inventorship for U.S. Patent No. 9,376,049. Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell, No. 2022-2170 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2024). The patent at issue, originally naming a single inventor (Steve Campbell), claims a lightweight intermodal container system for transporting refrigerated gaseous fluids. This post examines the reasoning behind the Federal Circuit’s affirmance as well as the potential applicability of the equitable defense of laches in cases brought under 35 U ..read more
Visit website
The Judicial Conference and Its Random Assignment “Policy”
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
Guest post by Professors Jonas Anderson[1] and Paul Gugliuzza[2] On Tuesday, March 12, 2024, the Judicial Conference of the United States—the self-governing body of the federal judiciary—held a press conference and issued a press release touting the Conference’s “strengthen[ing of] the policy governing random case assignment, limiting the ability of litigants to effectively choose judges in certain cases by where they file a lawsuit.” As we’ve explained in a series of articles, in many federal courts throughout the country, all or practically all cases are assigned to a single judge, giving li ..read more
Visit website
When is a Government Official’s Social Media a State Action?
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
1w ago
by Dennis Crouch Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. ___ (2024) 22-611_ap6c. This recent decision from the Supreme Court case grapples with the issue of when a public official’s social media activity constitutes state action for purposes of a First Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983.  I’ve been following the case as part of my work on internet and media law issues. The case arose after James Freed, the city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, deleted comments and blocked a Port Huron citizen (Kevin Lindke) from commenting on Freed’s personal Facebook page after Lindke used the forum to criticize t ..read more
Visit website
The Analogous Art Doctrine Post-KSR: Insights from the Federal Circuit’s Daedalus Decision
Patently-O
by Dennis Crouch
2w ago
by Dennis Crouch In a short nonprecedential decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB IPR decision finding claims 15-25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,132 (‘132 patent) unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over combinations of prior art references. Daedalus Blue LLC v. Vidal, No. 2023-1313, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2024).  The key issue on appeal was whether the Gelb reference qualified as analogous art for the purposes of the obviousness analysis.  Daedalus unsuccessfully argued that the PTAB erred in two respects: (1) by finding Gelb to be in the same field of endeavor as the ..read more
Visit website

Follow Patently-O on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR