Archive for 'Litigation'
Written By: Brian P. O’Shaughnessy & Brian S. Seal This article appeared in the Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A & Canada), Inc.’s Insight Newsletter – March 31, 2015 On behalf of LES (USA and Canada), Inc., Brian Seal of RatnerPrestia will participate in a panel discussion today, Tuesday March 31, analyzing the U.S. Supreme Court hearing [...]
Written By: Keith E. George This article appeared in the March 2, 2015 Edition of IP Law 360 There is now little doubt the Supreme Court’s decision last year in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l has had and continues to have a profound impact on many aspects of patent protection. There seem [...]
Posted: March 2nd, 2015 under Litigation.
RatnerPrestia Files Amicus Brief at U.S. Supreme Court in Kimble v Marvel Ent. on behalf of Licensing Executives Society (USA and Canada), Inc
On behalf of the Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc., RatnerPrestia shareholder Brian P. O’Shaughnessy and counsel Brian S. Seal today filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 134-720. The case, on appeal from the Ninth Circuit, addresses the much-criticized holding of Brulotte v. Thys [...]
By: Thomas G. Southard and Sunjeev S. Sikand of RatnerPrestia This article appeared in the February 4, 2015 Edition of The Legal Intelligencer As an alternative to litigating in federal court, the America Invents Act (“AIA”) vests the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) with power to conduct post-grant proceedings in which accused infringers [...]
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand and Thomas G. Southard This article appeared in the January 2015 Edition of IP Today Every day, businesses throughout the world are served with a patent infringement complaint. In nearly all cases, a question over patent validity arises. Disputing patent validity in federal court, however, can be a costly undertaking.
Posted: January 13th, 2015 under Litigation.
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand This article appeared in theSeptember 25, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360 At the heart of nearly every patent litigation is a dispute over the meaning of claim terms. Such disputes often arise in the form of a claim definiteness challenge by the accused infringer. Recently, in Nautilus v. Biosig1, [...]
Written By: Sunjeev S. Sikand This article appeared in the July 22, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360 In proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, whether a reference is publicly accessible and therefore qualifies as a prior art printed publication depends on the "facts and circumstances surrounding the reference’s disclosure to members of [...]
Triton Tech v. Nintendo: How Specific Must a Disclosure be About an Algorithm Before it Provides Structure Sufficient For a Means-Plus-Function Claim?
Written By: Derek Richmond This article first appeared in the July 8, 2014 Edition of IP Law 360 Over the last few years, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) has held that a means-plus-function term in a claim relating a computer implemented invention must be supported by a corresponding structure, which can [...]
Supreme Court’s Alice Decision Strikes a Blow Against Patent Trolls in Confirming that Adding the Words “Apply It With A Computer” Does Not Make an Abstract Idea Patentable
Written By: Thomas G. Southard, Christopher H. Blaszkowski A unanimous Supreme Court today ruled that software patents based on abstract ideas that merely require generic computer implementation are ineligible for patent protection, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent en banc decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. This ruling [...]
Federal Circuit Issues Trilogy of Precedential Orders on Inter Partes Review Under the America Invents Act
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder SUMMARY On April 24, 2014, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential orders. The orders relate to two cases that sought to require the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to initiate inter partes reviews of patents and one case that sought to require the Board to withdraw orders initiating inter [...]
Posted: April 25th, 2014 under Litigation.