Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Meanwhile, Back at the PTAB with CRISPR – Update
- Judge Newman Seeks Recourse from Supreme Court
- Quo Vadis mRNA Vaccine Technology? The State of the IP Lawsuits
- Moderna Settles Patent Litigation with Arbutus et al.
- USPTO and DOJ Statement of Interest in Collision Communications: Another Thumb on the Scale in Favor of NPE Patent Plaintiffs
about
Year: 2020
-
LexisNexis IP and IPWatchdog will be offering a webinar entitled "A Conversation with the Commissioner: A Look Inside Patent Processes at the USPTO" on July 30, 2020 at 12:00 pm (ET). Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com and Megan McLoughlin of LexisNexis IP will be joined by Drew Hirshfeld, Commissioner for Patents; Jay Kramer, Group Director Patent…
-
Mathys & Squire will be offering a webinar entitled "Supplementary Protection Certificates in Europe (Part 1)" on July 30, 2020 from 6:00 to 7:00 pm (GMT Summer Time). Peter Arch and Alexander Robinson of Mathys & Squire LLP will provide an introduction to the basic requirements for obtaining Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC) protection, the types…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — As the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted life throughout the world this spring, bats have been a prominent feature in news stories and recriminations about how the pandemic started (and being blamed even more than happenings in China, although to be fair the effects of the pandemic, good and bad, have…
-
Note: The below is a sarcastic parody, in the spirit of our earlier sarcastic parodies. By Michael Borella — WASHINGTON D.C., June 23, 1984. In a unanimous decision, the Federal Circuit has ruled U.S. Patent No. 4,405,829 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding the claimed invention directed to an abstract idea. The '829 patent,…
-
By Michael Borella — Introduction Packet Intelligence sued NetScout in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,665,725, 6,839,751, and 6,954,789. The District Court ruled that all three patents were valid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 102, and infringed. The § 101 dispute was tried at the bench. NetScout appealed.…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Arthrex recently filed a(nother) certiorari petition with the Supreme Court, this time in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also been the subject of petitions from the U.S. government and Smith & Nephew. (This is the later-decided case between the parties, and has as its hallmark the…
-
By Michael Borella — Electronic Communication Technologies (ECT) sued ShoppersChoice in the Southern District of Florida for allegedly infringing claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,373,261. The claim recites: 11. An automated notification system, comprising: one or more transceivers designed to communicate data; one or more memories; one or more processors; and computer program code stored in the one…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Arthrex recently filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Inc. (a case related to Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which has also the subject of petitions from the U.S. government and Smith & Nephew). The Questions Presented are: 1. Whether the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last fall, the Federal Circuit decided in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. that Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) were principal officers and thus had been improperly appointed under the Appointments Clause, and accordingly vacated a PTAB determination in an inter…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — While the Federal Circuit's decision last fall in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. raised issues about the appointment of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) serving on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), it should be remembered that it also wiped out a PTAB decision in favor of Smith &…
Patent Docs 