Posts in US Supreme Court


In general, the courts distinguish between functions and algorithms, and they require patent applicants to disclose algorithms to cure perceived deficiencies in functions. The problem with this line of reasoning is that both algorithms and functions under 35 U.S.…

Continue Reading

I think there was certainly a level of abuse prior to patent trolls from larger companies that weren’t scrupulous trying to sue smaller companies and using the high cost of patent litigation to get things they weren’t …

Continue Reading

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015) rejuvenates a 50-year-old rule that limits collecting patent royalties after a patent expires. On June 22, 2015, the Court upheld its per se Brulotte rule that bars …

Continue Reading

During the last hearing of the House Judiciary Committee there was an attempt to insert language via amendment that would make it impossible for Kyle Bass and others to challenge pharmaceutical patents via post grant challenge at the Patent …

Continue Reading

It is undeniable that the major destructive force in the patent system today is the United States Supreme Court. Indeed, over the last several years, the Supreme Court has become extremely active in the area of patent law. They …

Continue Reading

Simply stated, any patent decision from the Supreme Court that cites stare decisis lacks all intellectual credibility given how arbitrarily and capriciously they have ignored their patent own precedent and the patent statutes over the past decade. Obviously, this …

Continue Reading

While some companies continue to wait and see, we saw a dramatic shift in late 2014. The most sophisticated companies on IP matters used the uncertainty to their advantage. They hypothesized the market couldn’t get much worse, and since …

Continue Reading

The idea that the Supreme Court is at all capable of understanding — let alone deciding — issues of a technical nature is ridiculous. Yet their individual and collective lack of knowledge hasn't prevented them from reaching misguided decisions in a …

Continue Reading

In both theories of indirect patent infringement (i.e., inducement of patent infringement and contributory infringement), the patent owner must show that the defendant knew its activities were infringing. If the defendant can prove that it did not have …

Continue Reading

The issue considered by the Supreme Court was whether a good faith belief of patent invalidity is a defense to a claim of induced infringement. In a 6-2 decision written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court ruled that belief …

Continue Reading

There was a split in the circuit courts as to what effect a TTAB decision will have, and this depends heavily upon where the litigation is happening. The weight of a TTAB decision will vary depending on the jurisdiction, …

Continue Reading

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has had a very long love affair with de novo review, a standard whereby the reviewing appellate court can simply do whatever they want without giving any deference to …

Continue Reading