IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts in Federal Circuit

Patent SOS: Inequitable Conduct Reform ASAP

Not long ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., a decision that just screams for Congress to codify Rule 56 and settle once and for all the duty of candor that is owed to the Patent Office during the patent application process. To be perfectly clear, it…

Does the Federal Circuit Give Enough Deference?

The attorneys for 800 Adapt, Inc. have recently filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari review of 800 Adapt, Inc. v. Murex Sec. Ltd., 539 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008) claiming that the Federal Circuit does not provide enough deference to district courts on claim construction and they should. According to Stephen Milbrath and David Magana of Orlando based Allen…

E.D. Texas No Longer Patent Troll Friendly

For those who own or purchase patents and then seek out litigators more interested in using the judicial process to harass plaintiffs, this should mean significant problems lie ahead. No longer is the Eastern District of Texas going to be the warm and friendly place where patent trolls get favorable rulings and force major corporations to litigate in a hostile environment. To be sure, the patent troll problem has not been solved, and cases will continue to be brought, but they will need to be brought in places where the dispute really ought to be litigated.

Machine Might Not be Patentable Subject Matter

Last week I was in Arlington, Virginia, teaching the PLI Patent Bar Review Course, so I was a bit out of touch with what was happening in the patent world as I tried to help a number of would-be patent attorneys and agents get through the PLI immersion course. Like clockwork, during this time out of the office the United…

Patent Wishes for the New Year

It is that time of the year when everyone makes their resolutions, most of which are sure to be broken almost immediately in most cases, particularly when the resolution deals with losing weight or exercising.  Not to be deterred, I have made both of those resolutions myself and I am cautiously optimistic about the likelihood that I will stay the course…

Google Notebook Scores Patent Victory

On Thursday, December 11, 2008, in iLOR v. Google, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit awarded Google a victory in the patent litigation brought against the Internet giant by iLOR, LLC. iLOR had sued Google in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky alleging that Google’s Google Notebook product was infringing upon…

Patent Reform Proposal: Codify USPTO Rule 56

Over the past several years I have been a harsh critic of the United States Patent & Trademark Office because there are substantial problems facing the US patent system and I do not believe any of the reforms urged by the USPTO are calculated in any meaningful way to address those problems.  According to the recently released 2008 USPTO Performance…

Patent Office Assault on Pharma Industry

The Wall Street Journal reported this weekend that in November the US economy lost over 500,000 jobs, the largest single month job loss since 1974.  So why would any branch of our government seek to assault one of the largest industries we have?  Lets face it, the banks and financial institutions are in horrendous shape, the US auto makers have…

Oral Arguments Completed in PTO v. GSK, Tafas

I am sitting in a Starbucks just outside the District of Columbia, across the river in Virginia.  I attended the oral arguments this morning at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regarding the matter of the United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Tafas, the appeal of the claims and continuations rules promulgated by the USPTO…

Federal Circuit Blasts Qualcomm Patents

On Monday, December 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming in part the district court’s ruling in the patent dispute between Broadcomm and Qualcomm.  See Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp.  The patent infringement case involved the consequence of silence in the face of a duty to disclose patents in a standards-setting organization.…

Federal Circuit to Hear Patent Office Appeal

Tomorrow, December 5, 2008 at 10:00am the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold oral arguments regarding the appeal by the United States Patent & Trademark Office of the ruling issued by Judge Cacheris of the Eastern District of Virginia, which permanently enjoined the claims and continuations rules from going into effect.  You will probably recall…

USPTO v. GSK & Tafas Chronology

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hold oral arguments in the case between the United States Patent & Trademark Office and Dr. Tafas and GlaxoSmithKline on Friday, December 5, 2008 at 10am.  I have followed this case since the very beginning and will be in attendance in the gallery to hear the arguments.  I plan…

A Blow to Software Patents

While the Federal Circuit has not said that software cannot be patented, what they did say substantially changes the law that has prevailed over the last 10 years and will render many software patents useless. Moving forward, you can protect software, but only by protecting the machine that the software operates on, which is the way patent attorneys used to be forced to write software patent applications many years ago. What it also means is that to have any chance at protecting software with a patent you will have to be willing to spend signficant amounts of money, because simply put there is no economical way to draft patents cost-effectively given the new Federal Circuit guidelines.

Federal Circuit Decides Egyptian Goddess

On Monday, September 22, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided the much anticipated design patent case – Egyptian Goddess v. Torkiya.   This decision is quite important because it changes the law applicable to design patent infringement litigation, and because all of the judges of the Court heard the case together and all agreed! …