Features
J. Ryan Gilfoil
On Sept. 26, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in <i>American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.</i> Judges Prost and Wallach affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California that three American Calcar patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Judge Newman filed a strongly worded dissent.
Columns & Departments
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Wyatt Delfino
Federal Circuit Defines "By Means Of" <br>Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Insufficient to Overcome Plain Meaning of Claim Term<br>Patentee's Failure to Connect the Dots Insufficient, But Not Sanction-Worthy
Features
Christian Mammen
It's well established that the number of lawsuits filed by patent trolls in the last decade has increased dramatically. This increase comes at considerable expense to defendants of all stripes. But as widely reviled as this trend may be among operating companies that often find themselves as defendants in patent troll litigation, legislation that would curb this practice has made little progress.
Columns & Departments
Howard J. Shire
&
Wyatt Delfino
Federal Circuit Applies <i>Alice</i> to Invalidate Online Transaction Patent <br>Federal Circuit Finds 'Unobtrusive' and 'Does Not Distract' Indefinite<br>Federal Circuit: In Hatch-Waxman, Infringement Based Only on Final ANDA Product
Kristin Shusko
The Supreme Court has recently issued opinions relaxing the standards for awarding attorney's fees against a patent enforcer, beginning with its decision on April 29, 2014, in <i>Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health and Fitness, Inc.</i>
Robert W. Clarida
&
Robert J. Bernstein
What do cheerleading uniforms and laminated faux-maple flooring have in common? And what does either one have to do with copyright law? Read on: Both have recently been the subject of dubious rulings about the copyrightability of useful articles that could, if not reversed, further muddy the already murky doctrinal waters the courts have created around this issue.
Columns & Departments
Jeffrey S. Ginsberg
&
Gary Yen
Fed. Circ. Reverses Denial Of Motion To Stay Post-Grant Review of Covered Business Method Patent<br>Fed. Circ. Vacates Injunction and Civil Contempt Sanction after USPTO Cancels Claim At Issue<br>Fed. Circ. Finds Potential Antitrust Violations by Patent Owner in ANDA Case
Features
Jose C. Villarreal
&
Joel C. Boehm
The AIA provides that the PTAB's initial decision on whether to institute proceedings "shall be final and nonappealable." But the precise meaning of this provision has already been disputed. Recent decisions have begun to shed light on the scope of review federal courts have on a PTAB initial determination.
Features
Sarah A. Bennington
&
Anthony M. Insogna
Since its enactment in 1984, the scope of the "safe harbor" provision of the patent code has been in flux. The provision is intended to exempt from infringement certain acts related to the development of drugs and medical devices that are subject to FDA regulatory approval, to enable competitors to immediately enter the market upon patent expiration. However, the contours and boundaries of the safe harbor have been a consistent source of controversy in the courts.
Margaret M. Welsh
The America Invents Act established <i>inter partes</i> review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO. Under this new regime, any person other than the patent owner is able to challenge the validity of a patent with a patent office trial. In a growing number of cases, the validity of a patent is determined at the USPTO prior to a district court dispute on infringement. The cost and time benefits of an IPR has encouraged hundreds of Petitioners to partake in these new proceedings.
