Gibbons Law Alert

Gibbons Law Alert

Tagged: Patent

Federal Circuit Advisory Council Gives Nod to Limited Claims and Prior Art in Patent Suits

by

Posted in Patent

On July 23, 2013

IP practitioners on both sides of the “v.” should take heed that the Federal Circuit Advisory Council (“the CAFC Council”) has unanimously approved a “Model Order Limiting Excess Patent Claims and Prior Art.” Citing a “[l]ack of discipline” by the asserting party, the CAFC Council recounted that the resulting “superfluous claims and prior art” have contributed to increasing the expense and burden of patent litigation. And rather than dealing with the number of claims and prior art references on an ad hoc basis, as is presently done, the aspirational Model Order sets default numerical limits on the number of asserted patent claims and prior art references.

The USPTO Launches the Global Patent Search Network

by

Posted in Patent

On July 22, 2013

On July 8, Teresa Stanek Rea, Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), announced on her official blog the launch of the Global Patent Search Network (“GPSN”). The GPSN is the result of a cooperative effort between the USPTO and China’s State Intellectual Property Office (“SIPO”). Users of the GPSN will be able to search full text Chinese patent documents and English machine translations, thus enabling searches in both English and Chinese. The initial database of documents will include published applications, granted patents, and utility models dated from 2008 to 2011. The database will be periodically updated. In addition, the USPTO anticipates the network will expand to include patent documentation from other foreign intellectual property offices.

So, Too, a DJ Plaintiff May Be Entitled to Attorney Fees in Exceptional Cases

by

Posted in Patent

On July 17, 2013

According to a recent Central District of California decision, a declaratory judgment plaintiff may be entitled to attorney fees if it prevails on non-infringement in a patent case. Homeland Housewares, LLC v. Sorensen Research and Dev. Trust, No. 11-03720, slip op. at 7-8 (C.D.C.A. Jun. 27, 2013). In Homeland, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability in response to a demand letter (and correspondence thereafter) asserting patent infringement. The asserted patent was directed to plastic injection molding, and the accused products were plastic cups. The Court granted plaintiff’s summary judgment of no infringement, but denied plaintiff’s motion for invalidity and in fact, granted defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment of validity. Plaintiff then moved for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits awards in “exceptional cases” to the “prevailing party,” but, who was the prevailing party?

Whither or Wither the A/C Privilege?

by

Posted in Patent

On July 15, 2013

The attorney-client privilege is one of the most sacrosanct and inviolable, allowing full and frank dialogue between client and counsel. The recent decision in BSP Software LLC v. Motio, Inc., 1-12-cv-02100 (ND Ill. July 9, 2013) DN 141, Order has broad implications for this well-established privilege, and important lessons-learned for when it might be waived.

High Court Seeks Government Input on Akamai v. Limelight

by

Posted in Patent

On June 25, 2013

The Supreme Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on whether to hear an appeal from the Federal Circuit’s decision in Akamai Technologies Inc. et al v. Limelight Network, Inc. on induced infringement. This is a very closely watched case for the software industry, but may have far reaching implications in the pharmaceutical field as well.

The End of an Era for Gene Patents? Supreme Court Rules that Isolated DNA is Unpatentable

by

Posted in Patent

On June 14, 2013

Over thirty years ago, the USPTO awarded the first gene patent (US 4,447,538) and the Supreme Court held that biological inventions were subject to patent protection. Since then, tens of thousands of U.S. “gene” or DNA related patents have issued. However, there has been much uncertainty over the patentability of such inventions as of late.

Don’t Go Over 1%, or the Seed Giant May Come After You!

by

Posted in Patent

On June 12, 2013

Last month, we reported on seed giant, Monsanto’s Supreme Court victory involving the question of patent exhaustion with regard to its sale of seed incorporating its patented seed technologies. On Monday, June 10, Monsanto appeared to emerge victorious from another litigation related to its seed technology and business when the Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that a coalition of organic farmers and seed sellers had no standing to seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity with respect to Monsanto’s patented seed technologies.

Obama Administration’s Latest Crackdown on Patent Trolls

by

Posted in Patent

On June 10, 2013

We have recently posted on various developments relating to the surge of litigations involving non-practicing entities, or patent assertion entities, also called “patent trolls.” Last week, the Obama administration launched its latest attack on these litigious parties. Last Tuesday, the President issued seven legislative recommendations and five executive orders aimed to reduce the number of patent troll cases being filed in federal court. Those recommendations and orders can be found at the White House’s website.

Twitter’s Innovative Patent Agreement (“IPA”) is in Play . . . .

by

Posted in Patent

On May 31, 2013

Last spring, we reported Twitter’s introduction of a novel employee patent assignment plan called the “Innovator’s Patent Agreement” (“IPA”). In short, the IPA is a patent assignment agreement, or transfer of patent ownership from an inventor/employee to a company, where the inventor retains control over how the patent is used. Twitter’s IPA now is in play.

The Patent Troll Assaults Continue … But To What End?

by

Posted in Patent

On May 30, 2013

Somewhere, someone must have taken the famous cartoon of Elmer Fudd, in full hunting regalia, and changed the caption to read, “Shhhhhhhhhhh, I’m hunting Twolls.” (After securing the appropriate IP permissions, of course.) This past fall, we posed the hypothetical question of whether it was open season for patent trolls, euphemistically referred to as non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) or patent assertion entities (“PAEs”), in the wake of the new 35 U.S.C. § 299.

Connect:

About Gibbons

With 200 attorneys, Gibbons is a leading law firm in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Washington, DC, and Florida, ranked among the nation’s top 200 by The American Lawyer. More…

Subscribe

Archived Blog Posts

Categories