Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part IV: The Usefulness Paradox
- Teva Capitulates to Federal Trade Commission Coercion
- USPTO Issues Memoranda on Subject Matter Eligibility
- USPTO Revokes Guidance on AI-Assisted Inventorship, But Rules Remain Basically the Same
- Why the Alice Test is Stupid, Part III: Eligible Independent Claims Can Have Ineligible Dependent Claims
about
Category: Miscellaneous
-
The authors and contributors of Patent Docs wish their readers and families a Happy Holidays. Publication of Patent Docs will resume on December 26th.
-
The authors and contributors of Patent Docs wish their readers and families a Happy Thanksgiving. Publication of Patent Docs will resume on November 25th.
-
By Andrew Williams — We recently reported that Chief Judge Stark of the District of Delaware interpreted the second prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Mylan because the first prong was no longer applicable in view of the Supreme Court's TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The 11th amendment to the Constitution reads: The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. The…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – The University of California/Berkeley filed its opening brief to the Federal Circuit last week, asking that Court to overturn the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision that there was no interference-in-fact between Berkeley's application and several U.S. patents and applications assigned to The Broad Institute. That decision is entitled to review…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan – In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision in FTC v. Actavis, finding that although so-called reverse payment settlement agreements were not per se antitrust violations in cases brought against generic drug makers by under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2), the potential for anticompetitive effects made them subject to antitrust scrutiny…
-
Eli Mazour of Harrity & Harrity, LLP has started a new online video series ("Clause 8") that will feature interviews with prominent members of the IP community. The interviews will explore personal stories, views about current intellectual property issues, and advice for intellectual property practitioners and policy makers. The first full interview, posted on Monday,…
-
By Donald Zuhn — In a letter sent to President Trump earlier this month, a group of twenty companies, organizations, and individuals expressed concern about the effect of the President's January 23, 2017 hiring freeze on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and innovation in the United States. The group noted that the USPTO is…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we reported last week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case on Monday March 27. In that previous report, we covered the background of the case, and presented the positions of both sides of the issue. Ultimately, this…
-
By Andrew Williams — Next week, on Monday March 27, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case. This case involves the interpretation of the current patent venue statute. And while interpreting statutory language may seem dry, the outcome of this case could have…
Patent Docs 