Patent Law Weblog
recent posts
- To Require an Inventor ID, or Not to Require an Inventor ID – That Is the Question
- Federal Circuit Refuses to Switch District Court’s Finding for Nintendo
- Supreme Court to Resolve Dispute Over Marketing of “Skinny Labeled” Generics
- Solicitor General Proves Persuasive; Supreme Court Grants Hikma’s Certiorari Petition
- CNIPA Implements Inventor ID Requirement
about
Category: Supreme Court
-
By Andrew Williams — In two closely watched cases, the Supreme Court today issued its opinions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1184) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1163). The issue in both cases centered on the attorney fee-shifting…
-
By Michael Borella — On Monday, March 31, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the closely-watched Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case. The question presented was "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions — including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture — are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning…
-
By Andrew Williams — Earlier today, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. case (Supreme Court docket number 13-854). The sole issue on appeal is encapsulated by the question presented: QUESTION PRESENTED: Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that in matters tried to district…
-
By Michael Borella — On March 28, Professor Robin Feldman of the University of California Hastings College of Law wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled "Slowing the Patent Trolls". Unfortunately, like so many articles of its ilk, Professor Feldman's offering uses misleading hypotheticals and unsupported assertions to allege that the mere…
-
By Michael Borella — In a previous article, we discussed the background of this case, and provided an overview of the Petitioner Brief of patentee Alice Corp. In this article, we continue by covering the brief of the Respondent, CLS Bank. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments for this case on March…
-
By Michael Borella — On December 6th, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to a case that presents the question of "[w]hether claims to computer-implemented inventions — including claims to systems and machines, processes, and items of manufacture — are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101 as interpreted by…
-
By Andrew Williams — On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases dealing with the attorney fee-shifting provision of 35 U.S.C. § 285. In the first case, Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1184), the issue on appeal was what constitutes an "exceptional…
-
By Andrew Williams — As we have reported over the past couple of weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases involving the attorney fees provision of 35 U.S.C. § 285 on Wednesday, February 26. That statute provides that a "court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party." …
-
By Andrew Williams — As we indicated last week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in two cases involving the Attorney Fees provision at 35 U.S.C. § 285. That section provides that a district court may award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party "in exceptional cases." The Octane Fitness case, which we…
-
By Andrew Williams — In less than two weeks, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases involving the Attorney Fees provision of 35 U.S.C. § 285. Both of these cases have garnered a lot of attention from the patent community, because many commentators have cited to this section as contributing to the so-called…
Patent Docs 