Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: Prosecution Laches Applies to Patent Claiming 1987 Priority Date Federal Circuit: Appellate Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Interlocutory Appeal of Protective Order Dispute
Columns & Departments
Patent Infringement and Trade Dress In the Ninth Circuit
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: Unpatentability Ruling In First IPR Estops Patentee In Second IPR of Related Patent Federal Circuit: A Disclaimer Made In a Pending IPR Is Not Binding In That Proceeding, But Is Binding In a Subsequent One
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: No Patent Term Adjustments When Claims Change Federal Circuit: Proceeding Need Not Be Terminated Upon Request
Features
Practitioners and non-practitioners that are associated with the examination of patents and patent applications should be vigilant about information that may be material to patentability to avoid having an issued patent be deemed unenforceable.
Features
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee's bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court's Decision That an Artificial Intelligence Software System Cannot Be Listed as an Inventor on a Patent Application Federal Circuit Affirms District Court's Partial Award of Attorney's Fees
Features
University of Massachusetts v. L'Oréal Absent an express disclaimer or special definition of how a term is to be interpreted, it can be frustrating to get a court to reject the plain and ordinary meaning of claim language read in a vacuum, based on the subtleties of how a term is used in a patent or its prosecution history.
Features
In June 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Arthrex that the statutory scheme appointing Patent Trial and Appeal Board administrative patent judges to adjudicate IPRs violates the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the Court concluded that because APJ decisions in IPR proceedings are not reviewable by a presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, such determinations are not compatible with the powers of inferior officers. The PTO later decided that it would not accept requests for director review of institution decisions. This policy is now also being questioned in Arthrex's wake.
Features
Regardless of whether a patent practitioner's clients favor a stricter or more lenient eligibility regime, patent eligibility decisions continue to evolve. We need a line drawn for what practitioners expect to be clearer. Hardware inventions are facing patent eligibility challenges that would have seemed more likely in software inventions. Recent court decisions have shown that what once made a hardware invention eligible may no longer fly.