Patent Law Updates

Featured Expert Legal Commentary

In re Ricoh Co., Ltd.: Federal Circuit Clarifies § 1920 Allowances for Prevailing Party to Charge Costs

By Thomas F. Zuber and Sarah S. Brooks of Zuber & Taillieu

The Federal Circuit recently clarified several aspects of § 1920’s allowances for a prevailing party to charge its costs against the losing party. In In re Ricoh Co., Ltd., 661 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit upheld the use of cost-sharing agreements over default statutory rules, allowed the… More...

More Patent Law Updates

Sort by:
Page 2 of 5 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Golden Hour v. emsCharts: Puppeteer Required for Joint Infringement Doctrine; Partial Disclosure May Evidence Inequitable Conduct

Golden Hour Data Systems Inc. v. emsCharts Inc.  |  December 7, 2010

In a split decision, the Federal Circuit has reiterated its strict interpretation of the joint infringement doctrine, limiting its application to cases where a clear “puppeteer” exists. In Golden Hour Data Systems Inc. v. emsCharts Inc., 614 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit More...

Bilski v. Kappos: Machine-or-Transformation Test Is Not the Sole Test for Patentability

Bilski v. Kappos  |  July 9, 2010

In a long-awaited opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court’s ultimate holding in In Re Bilski, but held that the Federal Circuit’s machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patentability of a claimed process. Bilski v. Kappos, ___ U.S. ___, 2010 WL More...

Avid Identification Systems v. Crystal Import Co.: President May Have Rule 56 Duty to Disclose

Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. The Crystal Import Corporation  |  June 21, 2010

The Federal Circuit has held that the founder and president of a company that has submitted a patent application may owe a duty to disclose to the USPTO under Rule 56(c)(3), even if he was not the inventor or preparing attorney or agent. In Avid Identification Systems Inc. v. The Crystal Import More...

ResQNet.com v. Lansa: Proper Calculation of Reasonable Royalty Rates

ResQNet.com Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.  |  June 1, 2010

The Federal Circuit clarified that extraneous and “inapposite” past license evidence should not be used to calculate reasonable royalty rates in patent infringement cases. In ResQNet.com Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit court affirmed a district court More...

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO: Isolated Genes Are Not Patentable Subject Matter

Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO  |  May 25, 2010

In a controversial decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has held that neither isolated DNA nor methods directed toward identifying mutations in these genes constitute patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101. If upheld on appeal, Ass’n for Molecular More...

I4i v. Microsoft: Affirming a $200 Million Infringement Award

May 16, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a $200 million-plus patent infringement damages award, as well as an accompanying injunction, against Microsoft. In i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., the Circuit Court stated that its review of a couple of key issues was limited due to More...

Ex Parte Frye (Precedential): BPAI Does Not Give Deference to Examiner Position

Ex Parte Nancy C. Frye  |  May 5, 2010

In a recent and rare precedential decision, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has clarified that examiner findings are given no deference when specifically challenged on appeal. However, the Board will neither review nor disturb examiner findings that are not specifically More...

SEB v. Montgomery Ward: “Deliberate Indifference” Can Sustain Inducement Claim

SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.  |  April 1, 2010

The Federal Circuit Court has broadened the standard for inducement of patent infringement by holding that proof of a defendants’ deliberate disregard of the risk that a patent exists can meet the actual knowledge requirement of an inducement claim. In SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 594 More...

Int’l Seaway Trading v. Walgreens: The Ordinary Observer Test Is the Sole Test of Invalidity of a Design Patent

Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens Corp.  |  March 15, 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has extended the holding of Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 435 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and held that the “point of novelty” test should no longer be applied to determine validity of a design patent. In Int’l Seaway Trading Corp. v. Walgreens More...

Forest Group v. Bon Tool: Upping the Incentives for False Marking Claims

The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.  |  March 4, 2010

The Federal Circuit has determined that the maximum fine for violation of the federal false marking statute should be applied on a per article basis, rather than the “per decision” basis applied by a majority of district courts in the past. In The Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., 590 F.3d More...

Page 2 of 5 of Patent Law Commentaries
 <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »

Companies Mentioned

Patent Law

The following companies are mentioned in Patent Law Updates:

Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc.

Synopsys, Inc.

Waters Corp.

ResQNet.com, Inc.

Guidant Sales Corp.

Ricoh Company, Ltd.

Swisa, Inc.

Lansa, Inc.

Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC

Matrox Tech, Inc.

Egyptian Goddess, Inc.

Kaplan & Gilman, LLP

St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Matrox International, Inc.

Dror Swisa

Datamars, Inc.

Pacesetter, Inc.

Matrox Graphics, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson, Inc.

Datamars S.A.

Exergen Corp.

Matrox Electronic Systems, Ltd.

Cordis Corp.

Crystal Import Corp.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

AMI Semiconductor, Inc.

Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc.

Avid Identification Systems, Inc.

Hana Microelectronics Co., Ltd.

Aeroflex, Inc.

Boston Scientific Corp.

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc.

CVS Corp.

Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc.

Target Corp.

emsCharts, Inc.

Daiwa Products, Inc.

Sears Holding Corp.

Softtech, LLC

S.A.A.T. Systems Application of Advanced Technology, Ltd.

Motherswear International, Redcats USA, L.P. d.b.a. Lane Bryant Catalog

Princo Corp.

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Leading Lady, Macy’s Department, Inc.

Princo America Corp.

Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.

International Trade Commission

Mayo Collaborative Services d.b.a. Mayo Medical Laboratories

K-Mart Corp.

TiVo Inc.

Additional Resources

Patent Law