Written By: Joshua L. Cohen
Everyone knows that you can’t add the flour after the cake is baked. The result is more than just a failed recipe. It represents wasted time, money and resources the baker has no choice but to start over from scratch. Like the cake’s flour, IP strategy is a crucial ingredient in successful new product innovation. A well designed and executed IP strategy will help an innovation to achieve its fullest commercial potential. Read more »
Written By: Jonathan H. Spadt
RatnerPrestia enhanced its litigation practice with the addition of 5 new litigation attorneys over the past year. Strengthening its litigation resources is a focus for the new year and one that the firm is presenting with a very pragmatic approach. “We understand the challenges of managing and controlling IP litigation costs while still achieving the necessary business objectives driving the matter. Read more »
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder
On September 13, 2013, the Federal Circuit sat en banc to hear argument in the Lighting Ballast[1] case. The court asked whether it should “afford deference to any aspect of a district court’s claim construction.” The answer to that question could bring more certainty to claim construction and to patent infringement litigation. Read more »
Written By: Lawrence E. Ashery
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 put, there is no room for error. In Medtronic CoreValve LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2014) one company discovered, incomplete priority claims can have dire consequences. Read more »
Washington, D.C. | February 2014 – On January 31, 2014, patent infringement claims asserted against Freixenet USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas were dismissed with prejudice by plaintiff Lamina Packaging Innovations, LLC. This comes after Freixenet’s hard-fought victory over Lamina in the International Trade Commission (ITC) in late 2013. Read more »
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder
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 rests upon the patentee,” 2) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural, and 3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim. Read more »
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) was filed during prosecution. Specifically, the time from allowance to issuance is now awarded to the patentee as part of a PTA. Patent holders with affected patents may wish to consider pursuing additional PTA in a Request for Reconsideration filed with the USPTO, or in a district court proceeding, if the deadline for pursuing such an action has not passed. Read more »
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 that more focused, incremental approaches are more suited to solving the problem, and will do so at less risk to our economy. Read more »
Written By: Bruce T. Wieder
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 is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless,” “[o]bjective baselessness alone can create a sufficient inference of bad faith to establish exceptionality under § 285….” Read more »
Washington, D.C. | December 2013 – RatnerPrestia is pleased to announce that Bruce Wieder has joined its Washington, D.C. office as Counsel and will be part of the firm’s Litigation group. Read more »