http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:03 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/19/sowing-the-seeds-of-wrath-doctrine-of-patent-exhaustion-could-not-save-farmer-from-liability-for-infringing-monsantos-patents-on-genetically-modified-seeds/id=40472/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/19/sowing-the-seeds-of-wrath-doctrine-of-patent-exhaustion-could-not-save-farmer-from-liability-for-infringing-monsantos-patents-on-genetically-modified-seeds/id=40472/#comments Sun, 19 May 2013 12:30:46 +0000 Cindy Chen http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40472 Related posts:

1. Planting Progeny Seeds Without Consent is Patent InfringementIn its amicus brief, CLI responds by arguing that the term “makes,” as used in Section 271(a), has its plain and ordinary meaning, which embraces the concepts of “bringing about” or “causing.” CLI contends that Bowman, through his acts of planting and cultivating, brought about and caused the formation of a next-generation of herbicide-resistant soybeans. Alternatively, CLI argues that, even if the concept of a “making” only literally reaches the acts of the herbicide-resistant soybean plants Bowman cultivated, Bowman would still be liable for those acts under principles of agency-instrumentality law. Based on his acts of planting and cultivating, CLI...
2. Argument Summary: Supreme Court Hears Bowman v. MonsantoWhile one can never know for certain how the Supreme Court will rule, even a casual observer has to conclude that the Supreme Court seems poised rule in favor of Monsanto. Seconds after Bowman's attorney started Chief Justice Roberts interrupted asking why anyone would ever patent anything if Bowman were to prevail. Shortly thereafter Justice Breyer openly concluded that Bowman infringed in a matter of fact way. It later may have seemed Breyer was probing for a response he didn't get more so than announcing his view of the case. Nevertheless, if Bowman loses Breyer he has no chance....
3. Bowman v. Monsanto: Striking at the Roots of InnovationBowman v Monsanto involves a farmer who figured out how to get Monsanto’s patented seeds cheaper from a grain elevator than from the company. I won’t attempt to delve into the intricacies of the litigation or the doctrine of patent exhaustion, but do want to consider a larger point. What happens if our innovators lose confidence in the patent system? Some apparently believe this is a desirable outcome...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/19/sowing-the-seeds-of-wrath-doctrine-of-patent-exhaustion-could-not-save-farmer-from-liability-for-infringing-monsantos-patents-on-genetically-modified-seeds/id=40472/feed/ 4 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/#comments Tue, 14 May 2013 19:16:13 +0000 John Kong http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40344 Related posts:

1. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
2. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
3. Is IBM’s Watson Still Patent Eligible?Watson? It is an artificially intelligent computer system that is capable of answering questions presented in natural language. It is, in essence, the modern day equivalent to the all knowing Star Trek computer. It is flat out ridiculous to be asking whether the Star Trek omnipotent computer could be patent eligible, that that is where we find ourselves because what makes the computer unique is the software that makes it possible for Watson to perform 80 trillion operations per second. But Federal Circuit Judges say that mere fact that software is fast doesn't make it patent eligible unless there is...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/14/the-alice-in-wonderland-en-banc-decision-by-the-federal-circuit-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40344/feed/ 6 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/#comments Mon, 13 May 2013 16:40:36 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40267 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
2. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....
3. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/13/did-the-federal-circuit-ignore-the-supreme-court-in-cls-bank/id=40267/feed/ 25 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/19/bio-pharma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court/id=39313/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/19/bio-pharma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court/id=39313/#comments Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:15:10 +0000 Ed Silverman http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39313 Related posts:

1. Pharma Law and Business – A Monthly Roundup December 2012Litigation always factors into the pharmaceutical world, but the US Supreme Court commanded a special place in recent days. The high court figured in no fewer than four contentious issues that, not surprisingly, play a vital role in how drug makers can and will operate. Let’s start with a case that is not yet before the court, but many predict will be headed there thanks to one of its earlier rulings. Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the conviction of a former sales representative, who argued that prosecuting him...
2. No One is Patenting Your Genes: The Ripple Effect if Isolated DNA Claims Are Made Patent IneligibleOne side in the “gene patent war” has nevertheless convinced the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of whether DNA sequences derived from the human genome are patentable, in Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics, while disingenuously labeling the patents at issue as “human gene patents.” Let’s set the record straight....
3. AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*As Myriad has correctly pointed out in its brief in opposition to the grant of certiorari, the question posed by the ACLU/PubPat (“Are Human Genes Patentable”) is absolutely the wrong one to answer: “The first question presented [by the ACLU/PubPat] bears no relation to the uncontroverted facts of this case.” (Myriad’s brief in opposition has also pointed out at least 4 other significant factual and legal “misstatements” made in the petition for certiorari by ACLU/PubPat.) As much as the ACLU/PubPat (and others) want to make the Myriad case into about “Who Owns You,” what Myriad has claimed does nothing of...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/19/bio-pharma-at-the-u-s-supreme-court/id=39313/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/16/supreme-court-hears-myriad-gene-patent-challenge/id=39242/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/16/supreme-court-hears-myriad-gene-patent-challenge/id=39242/#comments Tue, 16 Apr 2013 21:40:32 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39242 Related posts:

1. AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*As Myriad has correctly pointed out in its brief in opposition to the grant of certiorari, the question posed by the ACLU/PubPat (“Are Human Genes Patentable”) is absolutely the wrong one to answer: “The first question presented [by the ACLU/PubPat] bears no relation to the uncontroverted facts of this case.” (Myriad’s brief in opposition has also pointed out at least 4 other significant factual and legal “misstatements” made in the petition for certiorari by ACLU/PubPat.) As much as the ACLU/PubPat (and others) want to make the Myriad case into about “Who Owns You,” what Myriad has claimed does nothing of...
2. Chakrabarty Controls on Isolated DNA Sequences, not Mayo*Unfortunately this unspecific remand by the Supreme Court in AMP vacates as well the two-to-one ruling by this same Federal Circuit panel (Judges Lourie and Moore in the majority, Judge Bryson in dissent) that the claimed isolated DNA sequences were also patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. What, pray tell, does Mayo Collaborative Services change with regard to that ruling in the original AMP decision? For those, like the plaintiffs in AMP (including the ACLU), who would like to upset this “applecart,” they’re likely to be very disappointed. I can describe what should be the impact of the ruling (and...
3. AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible*The other point that also bears repeating (and quoting) from the majority opinion in the AMP remand is Judge Lourie’s response to the so-called “preemption” question: "Plaintiffs argue here that they are preempted from using the patented DNA molecules. The answer to that concern is that permitting patents on isolated genes does not preempt a law of nature. A composition of matter is not a law of nature. Moreover, as indicated earlier, a limited preemption is inherent in every patent: the right to exclude for a limited period of time."...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/16/supreme-court-hears-myriad-gene-patent-challenge/id=39242/feed/ 25 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/15/forward-looking-personalized-medicine-patent-law-and-science/id=39163/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/15/forward-looking-personalized-medicine-patent-law-and-science/id=39163/#comments Mon, 15 Apr 2013 15:25:08 +0000 Lori Pressman http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39163 Related posts:

1. No One is Patenting Your Genes: The Ripple Effect if Isolated DNA Claims Are Made Patent IneligibleOne side in the “gene patent war” has nevertheless convinced the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of whether DNA sequences derived from the human genome are patentable, in Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics, while disingenuously labeling the patents at issue as “human gene patents.” Let’s set the record straight....
2. AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*As Myriad has correctly pointed out in its brief in opposition to the grant of certiorari, the question posed by the ACLU/PubPat (“Are Human Genes Patentable”) is absolutely the wrong one to answer: “The first question presented [by the ACLU/PubPat] bears no relation to the uncontroverted facts of this case.” (Myriad’s brief in opposition has also pointed out at least 4 other significant factual and legal “misstatements” made in the petition for certiorari by ACLU/PubPat.) As much as the ACLU/PubPat (and others) want to make the Myriad case into about “Who Owns You,” what Myriad has claimed does nothing of...
3. Myriad: Isolated DNA claims from “ball bats in trees,” and “kidneys” to “magic microscopes.”The basic argument in Myriad is whether DNA that is isolated from the chromosomes is statutory subject matter, or whether it is a product of nature. The stakes are high in the Myriad case, since the isolated DNA claimed by Myriad encodes mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 proteins that can be used to detect breast cancer. Myriad has the only test offered in the United States because of its aggressive enforcement of its several patents. The numerous plaintiffs in the case speak to the core of the patent versus non-patent debate: whether patents actually “promote the progress of science and useful...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/15/forward-looking-personalized-medicine-patent-law-and-science/id=39163/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/17/chief-judge-rader-on-the-supreme-court-and-judge-posner/id=37620/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/17/chief-judge-rader-on-the-supreme-court-and-judge-posner/id=37620/#comments Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:07:22 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=37620 Related posts:

1. The Way Forward from Mayo Collaborative Services is through the Classen Immunotherapies Remand*The reasoning in Mayo Collaborative Services makes no patent law logical sense on numerous grounds, including disregarding an important paragraph in the Supreme Court’s 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr that is not only binding precedent, but also tells us that Breyer’s opinion repeatedly does what this paragraph from Diehr says not to do in an analysis of method or process claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the question now becomes what do we do to keep the reasoning in Mayo Collaborative Services from exploding into completely irrational, as well as patent law insane doctrine? The way forward to...
2. Chief Judge Rader Speaks Out About Patent Litigation AbuseChief Judge Rader: "The patent system has a narrow focus. It is not a consumer affairs program. It is not a manufacturers guarantee compliance program. It’s not a competition program. It has one objective, summarized well by the Constitution: promote the progress of science and the useful arts. It’s there to create more investment and more incentive for innovation and invention. The things that the patent system is criticized for is not its job."...
3. Throwing Down the Gauntlet: Rader Rules in Utramercial that Breadth and Lack Specificity Does Not Make Claimed Method Impermissibly Abstract*Some will undoubtedly view the Chief Judge’s basis in Ultramercial for distinguishing the ruling in CyberSource as being “slight of hand” and using “mirrors,” but it certainly illustrates the wide gulf of views between the various members on the Federal Circuit on the patent-eligibility question. I wouldn’t be surprised (and frankly it needs to happen) if both Ultramercial and CyberSource ended up before the en banc Federal Circuit. As I’ve noted previously, we’ve currently got what appear to be irreconcilable decisions in the Classen, Prometheus, and AMP cases in determining the patent-eligibility of certain medical (e.g., diagnostic) methods. With what...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/17/chief-judge-rader-on-the-supreme-court-and-judge-posner/id=37620/feed/ 14 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/04/gunn-et-al-v-minton-patent-malpractice-not-a-federal-issue/id=36302/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/04/gunn-et-al-v-minton-patent-malpractice-not-a-federal-issue/id=36302/#comments Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:45:49 +0000 Jason Williams http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=36302 Related posts:

1. Business Method Patents and the Equitable Standard for Granting Permanent Injunctions: The eBay Case*The concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy is even more unfortunate. Like Chief Justice Roberts, while agreeing with Justice Thomas’ holding that the traditional “four-factor” test applied to the grant of injunctive relief in patent cases, Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion went even further to suggest that “trial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier patent cases.” As Justice Kennedy saw it, “an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool...
2. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...
3. Semiconductor Energy Laboratory v. Yujiro Nagata: Assignor Estoppel is Affirmative Defense, No Supplemental JurisdictionSemiconductor Energy Laboratory (“SEL”) appealed the decision of the District Court of California that dismissed with prejudice SEL’s complaint versus Yujiro Nagata (“Nagata”) due to a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) –lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The CAFC also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a number of state law claims. Ultimately, the CAFC affirmed the decision of the district court stating in part: “[b]ecause the district court did not err in holding that there is no federal cause of action based on assignor estoppel and did not abuse its discretion in declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/04/gunn-et-al-v-minton-patent-malpractice-not-a-federal-issue/id=36302/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/03/patent-pending-corporations-the-constitution-and-the-human-gene/id=36412/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/03/patent-pending-corporations-the-constitution-and-the-human-gene/id=36412/#comments Sun, 03 Mar 2013 17:17:26 +0000 Robin Feldman http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=36412 Related posts:

1. AMP v. Myriad: SCOTUS Must Remember What Case Is Not About*As Myriad has correctly pointed out in its brief in opposition to the grant of certiorari, the question posed by the ACLU/PubPat (“Are Human Genes Patentable”) is absolutely the wrong one to answer: “The first question presented [by the ACLU/PubPat] bears no relation to the uncontroverted facts of this case.” (Myriad’s brief in opposition has also pointed out at least 4 other significant factual and legal “misstatements” made in the petition for certiorari by ACLU/PubPat.) As much as the ACLU/PubPat (and others) want to make the Myriad case into about “Who Owns You,” what Myriad has claimed does nothing of...
2. No One is Patenting Your Genes: The Ripple Effect if Isolated DNA Claims Are Made Patent IneligibleOne side in the “gene patent war” has nevertheless convinced the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of whether DNA sequences derived from the human genome are patentable, in Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics, while disingenuously labeling the patents at issue as “human gene patents.” Let’s set the record straight....
3. AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible*The other point that also bears repeating (and quoting) from the majority opinion in the AMP remand is Judge Lourie’s response to the so-called “preemption” question: "Plaintiffs argue here that they are preempted from using the patented DNA molecules. The answer to that concern is that permitting patents on isolated genes does not preempt a law of nature. A composition of matter is not a law of nature. Moreover, as indicated earlier, a limited preemption is inherent in every patent: the right to exclude for a limited period of time."...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/03/03/patent-pending-corporations-the-constitution-and-the-human-gene/id=36412/feed/ 3 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/20/argument-summary-supreme-court-hears-bowman-v-monsanto/id=35787/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/20/argument-summary-supreme-court-hears-bowman-v-monsanto/id=35787/#comments Wed, 20 Feb 2013 19:54:36 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=35787 Related posts:

1. Planting Progeny Seeds Without Consent is Patent InfringementIn its amicus brief, CLI responds by arguing that the term “makes,” as used in Section 271(a), has its plain and ordinary meaning, which embraces the concepts of “bringing about” or “causing.” CLI contends that Bowman, through his acts of planting and cultivating, brought about and caused the formation of a next-generation of herbicide-resistant soybeans. Alternatively, CLI argues that, even if the concept of a “making” only literally reaches the acts of the herbicide-resistant soybean plants Bowman cultivated, Bowman would still be liable for those acts under principles of agency-instrumentality law. Based on his acts of planting and cultivating, CLI...
2. Sowing the seeds of wrath: Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion Could Not Save Farmer from Liability for Infringing Monsanto’s Patents on Genetically Modified SeedsSome had hoped that the Court would use Bowman as an opportunity to address the extent of a patent owner’s monopoly over other self-replicating technologies in the areas of biotechnology and information technology, such as human cell lines or computer programs. Certainly, the Court hinted at the possibility of situations where the patented article’s self-replication is truly outside the purchaser’s control, or where the self-replication is an essential step in using the patented article for another authorized purpose. The Court, however, cautiously declined to extend its holding in Bowman to those situations. The decision in Monsanto is intended to be...
3. Dissecting Bilski: The Meaning of the Supreme Patent DecisionWho knows what goes through the minds of anyone, let alone a cloistered Justice of the United States Supreme Court. What we do know, however, is that 5 Justices, namely Justices Kennedy, Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Scalia all agreed that business methods are patentable subject matter. All 9 Justices agreed that the Federal Circuit misread previous Supreme Court decisions when they mandated that the machine or transformation test be the only test for determining whether a process is patentable subject matter. All 9 Justices agreed that the Bilski application was properly rejected, with the majority agreeing that it was properly...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/20/argument-summary-supreme-court-hears-bowman-v-monsanto/id=35787/feed/ 15 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/18/planting-progeny-seeds-without-consent-is-patent-infringement/id=35535/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/18/planting-progeny-seeds-without-consent-is-patent-infringement/id=35535/#comments Mon, 18 Feb 2013 13:25:24 +0000 CropLife International http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=35535 Related posts:

1. Sowing the seeds of wrath: Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion Could Not Save Farmer from Liability for Infringing Monsanto’s Patents on Genetically Modified SeedsSome had hoped that the Court would use Bowman as an opportunity to address the extent of a patent owner’s monopoly over other self-replicating technologies in the areas of biotechnology and information technology, such as human cell lines or computer programs. Certainly, the Court hinted at the possibility of situations where the patented article’s self-replication is truly outside the purchaser’s control, or where the self-replication is an essential step in using the patented article for another authorized purpose. The Court, however, cautiously declined to extend its holding in Bowman to those situations. The decision in Monsanto is intended to be...
2. Argument Summary: Supreme Court Hears Bowman v. MonsantoWhile one can never know for certain how the Supreme Court will rule, even a casual observer has to conclude that the Supreme Court seems poised rule in favor of Monsanto. Seconds after Bowman's attorney started Chief Justice Roberts interrupted asking why anyone would ever patent anything if Bowman were to prevail. Shortly thereafter Justice Breyer openly concluded that Bowman infringed in a matter of fact way. It later may have seemed Breyer was probing for a response he didn't get more so than announcing his view of the case. Nevertheless, if Bowman loses Breyer he has no chance....
3. Bowman v. Monsanto: Striking at the Roots of InnovationBowman v Monsanto involves a farmer who figured out how to get Monsanto’s patented seeds cheaper from a grain elevator than from the company. I won’t attempt to delve into the intricacies of the litigation or the doctrine of patent exhaustion, but do want to consider a larger point. What happens if our innovators lose confidence in the patent system? Some apparently believe this is a desirable outcome...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/18/planting-progeny-seeds-without-consent-is-patent-infringement/id=35535/feed/ 5 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/14/refocusing-kirtsaeng-analysis-on-extra-territoriality-principles/id=35328/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/14/refocusing-kirtsaeng-analysis-on-extra-territoriality-principles/id=35328/#comments Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:58:13 +0000 Kevin Tottis http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=35328 Related posts:

1. SCOTUS Adopts International Copyright Exhaustion in KirtsaengTuesday, in Kirtsaeng v. John W. Wiley and Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the first sale doctrine of Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act trumps a copyright owner’s right under Section 602(a)(1) to bar importation of copies when they were made and sold outside the United States. The Court appropriately rejected a cramped geographic reading of “lawfully made under this title,” but largely gutted the right of copyright owners under Section 602(a)(1) to bar importation of copies. Along the way, the Court unequivocally adopted international copyright exhaustion without a lick of statutory support or evidence of Congressional...
2. Supreme Court Punts on Costco First Sale Copyright CaseUnited States Supreme Court issued a non-decision in the matter of Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Omega, S.A. The Per Curiam decision simply read: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." Unfortunately, this non-decision could well signal the beginning of the end for the first sale doctrine given that goods manufactured and sold outside the United States can apparently be controlled downstream by the copyright owner without the copyright owner having exhausted rights through the sale....
3. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Costco Copyright CaseThe dispute arose because Omega, S.A., sought to prevent the petitioner, Costco Wholesale Corporation, from reselling genuine watches originally sold by Omega to authorized foreign distributors. Omega, a Swiss company that manufactures watches in Switzerland, did not authorize the importation of the watches by Costco, despite the fact that Costco legally purchased the watches abroad. Thus, the question in this case will be whether copyrighted materials made abroad and legally purchased abroad can be imported without the express permission of the copyright owner. In other words, does the first sale doctrine extinguish the rights of the copyright holder when the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/14/refocusing-kirtsaeng-analysis-on-extra-territoriality-principles/id=35328/feed/ 1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/10/bowman-v-monsanto-striking-at-the-roots-of-innovation/id=35010/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/10/bowman-v-monsanto-striking-at-the-roots-of-innovation/id=35010/#comments Sun, 10 Feb 2013 15:45:09 +0000 Joseph Allen http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=35010 Related posts:

1. Sowing the seeds of wrath: Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion Could Not Save Farmer from Liability for Infringing Monsanto’s Patents on Genetically Modified SeedsSome had hoped that the Court would use Bowman as an opportunity to address the extent of a patent owner’s monopoly over other self-replicating technologies in the areas of biotechnology and information technology, such as human cell lines or computer programs. Certainly, the Court hinted at the possibility of situations where the patented article’s self-replication is truly outside the purchaser’s control, or where the self-replication is an essential step in using the patented article for another authorized purpose. The Court, however, cautiously declined to extend its holding in Bowman to those situations. The decision in Monsanto is intended to be...
2. Planting Progeny Seeds Without Consent is Patent InfringementIn its amicus brief, CLI responds by arguing that the term “makes,” as used in Section 271(a), has its plain and ordinary meaning, which embraces the concepts of “bringing about” or “causing.” CLI contends that Bowman, through his acts of planting and cultivating, brought about and caused the formation of a next-generation of herbicide-resistant soybeans. Alternatively, CLI argues that, even if the concept of a “making” only literally reaches the acts of the herbicide-resistant soybean plants Bowman cultivated, Bowman would still be liable for those acts under principles of agency-instrumentality law. Based on his acts of planting and cultivating, CLI...
3. Patent Verdicts We Planned ForNews analysis and op-ed pieces following the $1 billion jury decision in Apple v. Samsung have been filled with reactive statements critical of the US patent system. Apple’s enforcement of its patents may “literally choke innovation” cried one law professor. A critic of the decision said that cases like this will require competitors to innovators like Apple to be much more mindful of patents and to “try to avoid or secure rights to [patents]” before bringing a product to market. What the critics have not explained is how making it easier for a foreign company like Samsung to steal US-born...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/10/bowman-v-monsanto-striking-at-the-roots-of-innovation/id=35010/feed/ 23 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/15/nike-v-yums-covenant-not-to-sue-prevents-jurisdiction/id=33202/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/15/nike-v-yums-covenant-not-to-sue-prevents-jurisdiction/id=33202/#comments Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:15:43 +0000 Beth Hutchens http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=33202 Related posts:

1. Under Armour Sues Nike Over Use of “I Will”In its complaint, UA stated that Nike started an ad campaign in the latter months of 2012 that misappropriated UA's trademark by pretty much making the phrase "I WILL" the focal point of its ads on its FACEBOOK and YouTube video pages, as well as on nike.com. In particular, Nike has used video footage in its ads that has the catch phrase superimposed throughout the video in big bold letters. UA argues that Nike was well aware of its ongoing, long-term use of the "I WILL" trademark (much in the same way that most people in the industry know that...
2. U.S. v. Alvarez: Trademark Dilution and the First AmendmentEarlier this week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion on the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. §§704). This poor little First Amendment case has been largely ignored for the simple fact that it was published just before the Healthcare Decision. U.S. v. Alvarez answers the question of whether it is acceptable to lie about receiving military awards, more specifically, the Medal of Honor. What is interesting about the opinion for us Intellectual Property nerds is that the concurrence and the dissent both appear to suggest that the harm resulting from such behavior is analogous to dilution in...
3. NFL Players vs. Owners: A Hail Mary of a LawsuitAbout 10 years ago, the NFLP decided that they wanted Reebok (and only Reebok) to make hats with the teams’ logos on them. American Needle, Inc., a competitor of Reebok, had been making these types of hats for the NFL for a really long time, and as a result of the NFLP’s deal with Reebok, it lost its contract with NFLP to make said hats. American Needle, Inc. did not have much of a sense of humor about this and sued the NFL under Antitrust principles. Enter American Needle v. National Football League et al. Needle is a big case...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/15/nike-v-yums-covenant-not-to-sue-prevents-jurisdiction/id=33202/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/04/business-method-patents-and-the-equitable-standard-for-granting-permanent-injunctions-the-ebay-case/id=32259/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/04/business-method-patents-and-the-equitable-standard-for-granting-permanent-injunctions-the-ebay-case/id=32259/#comments Fri, 04 Jan 2013 14:15:46 +0000 Eric Guttag http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=32259 Related posts:

1. CAFC Sanity on Permanent Injunctions. A Twisted Sister Moment?the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that the United States Federal District Court for the Southern District of California abused its discretion when it refused to award a victorious patent plaintiff a permanent injunction where the patentee directly competes with the infringer. The case is Presidio Components v. American Technical Ceramics. The opinion was authored by Chief Judge Rader and joined by Judge Plager and Judge Wallach. Perhaps this case will be a turning point, something of a Twisted Sister moment. You know — “we’re Not gonna take it, no, we ain’t gonna take it,...
2. Salinger v. Colting: Second Circuit Vacates Preliminary Injunction Citing eBay v. MercExchangeLast summer J.D. Salinger sued the author/publisher of the book entitled “60 Years Later Coming Through the Rye” for copyright infringement. Salinger claimed that the book was a sequel to his famous book entitled “Catcher in the Rye” and therefore it was an infringing derivative work. The Second Circuit agreed with the district court that Salinger is likely to ultimately prevail in his lawsuit because the book is probably an infringing work which is not protected by the fair use exception to copyright infringement. However, the Second Circuit remanded because it held that the test used by the district court...
3. Happy 5th Anniversary: The Impact of eBay v. MercExchangeSince the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange there have been 131 cases where a permanent injunction has issued and 43 cases where a permanent injunction has been denied. Some have tried to pass this off as not much of a departure from the practice prior to the Supreme Court's decision. Such a viewpoint is, however, not correct. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision it was virtually unheard of for a district court to deny a victorious plaintiff a permanent injunction in patent infringement case. So the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. MercExchange has been one that has...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/04/business-method-patents-and-the-equitable-standard-for-granting-permanent-injunctions-the-ebay-case/id=32259/feed/ 4