Archive for 'Patent'
Written By: Lawrence E. Ashery This article appeared in the March 5, 2014 issue of The Legal Intelligencer There are 196 countries in the world, and virtually all of them have intellectual property legislation. In today’s global market, international protection of innovation is a must. For a company to grow, it must protect the use, [...]
Posted: March 14th, 2014 under Patent.
Written By: Christopher A. Rothe An applicant who applies for a patent in the U.S. must list each and every inventor in their patent application. When an applicant makes an error and fails to list inventors correctly, the error can create complications when the patent is enforced. In some cases, the error can render the [...]
Posted: February 16th, 2014 under Patent.
Written By: Stephen J. Weed & Thomas G. Southard In October 2013, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) began issuing the first patents under the new first-to- file rules of the America Invents Act (“AIA”), which went into effect on March 16, 2013. In addition to changing the U.S. patent system from a first [...]
Written By: Lawrence E. Ashery This article was published in IP Law 360 on February 3, 2014 While Alexander Pope has often been quoted for writing “to err is human, to forgive, divine,” some mistakes have greater ramifications than others. United States patent applications have incredibly high standards regarding the accuracy of priority claims. Simply [...]
Posted: February 3rd, 2014 under Patent.
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder SUMMARY On January 22, the Supreme Court held that even when a licensee sues a patentee for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, the burden of proving infringement falls on the patentee. In Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, the Court ruled that 1) “the burden of proving infringement generally [...]
Written By: Lisa A. Mead In an opinion issued on January 15, 2014 in Novartis AG v. Lee (Fed. Cir., 2014), the Federal Circuit changed how patent term adjustment (PTA) determinations are to be calculated. Several months of additional PTA may now be added to a patent term if a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) [...]
Federal Circuit Takes a Swipe at Baseless Patent Litigation | Easing Burden for Recovering Fees Shows Court’s Willingness to Address Litigation Abuse
Written By: Brian. P. O’Shaughnessy The debate over patent litigation abuse, and its effect on innovation and our economy, continues to rage. Various interests, and now members of Congress, argue that immediate action in the form of legislation is needed. Those intimately involved in the daily administration of our patent system, however, urge caution, saying [...]
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder SUMMARY On December 26, the Federal Circuit made it easier for a defendant in a patent infringement suit to recover attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In Kilopass Technology, Inc. v. Sidense Corp., the court ruled that although recovery of attorneys’ fees requires a showing that “(1) the litigation [...]
RatnerPrestia Shareholder Tom Southard Quoted in American Banker article “Why Patent Reform Matters to Banks”
Written By: Thomas G. Southard American Banker interviewed and quoted RatnerPrestia Shareholder Tom Southard for the December 6 article “Why Patent Reform Matters to Banks.” The article discusses U.S. House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte’s (R-Va.) proposed Innovation Act (H.R. 3309), which is aimed at curbing abusive patent litigation, including frivolous actions filed by so called [...]
Posted: December 9th, 2013 under Patent.
Written By: Derek Richmond The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently decided Ibormeith v. Mercedes-Benz, No. 2013-1007 (CAFC Oct. 22, 2013) (“Ibromeith”). Ibormeith sued Mercedes-Benz for infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,313,749 (“the ‘749 patent”) titled “Sleepiness Detection for Vehicle Driver or Machine Operator.”