Posts Tagged: "Patent Litigation"

CAFC Rules Patentee’s Expert Failed to Sufficiently Identify Elements of Claimed Data Transmitting Means

A “black letter” rule of patent law is that infringement requires proof that the alleged infringing device includes all elements or limitations recited in the claim.  Known alternatively as the “All Elements Rule” (AER) or “All Limitations Rule” (ALR), it behooves a patentee to make sure that each and every claim element or limitation is clearly shown to be present…

More Patents Bite the Dust Thanks to CAFC Bilski Decision

So the fact that a method or process may be performed on a computer is not enough. I dare say that strict adherence to the Federal Circuit test in Bilski would compel a similar ruling that a method or process is not patentable even if it must be performed on a computer. Thus, the take home lesson moving forward must be that it is not enough to recite a computer, or even articulate an invention that necessarily must and only can be performed on a computer. At least for now these types of inventions must be described with a level of particularity that explains the innovation on a system level.

Science Fiction, Patent Haters and Useless Federal Complaints

Once again patent haters are beating the old worn out drum, or are they?  Several weeks ago Global Findability, Inc. brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Summit Entertainment, LLC and Escape Artists, LLC, in the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.  The complaint alleges that Global Findability is the owner by assignment of US Patent No.…

ACLU Should Be Hit With Rule 11 Sanctions

In the ACLU v. Myriad case, the ACLU has alleged that the patents involved in the case cover genes found in nature. This statement is so patently (pun intended) false, that the ACLU either purposely deceived the court or is guilty of gross negligence about the facts plead in the case. As Gene points out in his post, Fired up:…

Call to Action: Amici Briefs in ACLU Gene Patent Challenge

Recently I received an e-mail with a link alerting me to something posted on the 271 blog relating to Bilski. The video (viewable on the 271 blog) is taken from a movie about World War II that focuses at least in part on Adolph Hitler. The video posted is from a scene that appears to be taking place in Hitler’s…

Fired Up: Challenging the Constitutionality of the Patent Act

The Plaintiffs allege that because human genes should not be patented.  Hardly something that anyone can argue.  The only trouble is that this is not what the US Patent Office allows, and it is not what Myriad Genetics has been granted a patent on.  Nevertheless, the frivolous ACLU lawsuit that seeks to use the US Constitution to declare patent claims…

District Court Rules ACLU Gene Patent Challenge May Proceed

In perhaps the worst opinion I have ever read from any federal court, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled earlier today that the ACLU challenge against the Myriad Genetics patents and the United States Patent and Trademark Office for issuing patents can proceed. Procedurally the posture was a Motion to Dismiss, which are…

Google Sued for Patent Infringement Over Chrome Courgette

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Google, Inc. was sued for patent infringement relating to its new Chrome browser by Red Bend, Ltd., an Israeli corporation and Red Bend Software, a Delaware corporation located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Red Bend, Ltd. is the owner of US Patent No. 6,546,552, and Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee of the ‘552 patent (hereinafter…

CAFC Continues to Struggle with How Title to Subject Inventions Works under Bayh-Dole

Federal funding, typically in the form of research grants, is often used to support university research.  The Bayh-Dole Act also allows universities to retain title to invention rights in such research (referred to as “subject inventions”).  See 35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(2).  What the Federal Circuit has struggled with recently is what does “retain title” mean under Bayh-Dole, and especially where…

The Puzzling Difference Between Schmutz X and Compound 24028 in AstraZeneca

Determining what compounds are obvious under the doctrine of “structural similarity” can be a daunting challenge, even for those of us with a chemistry or pharmaceutical background.  Add the doctrine of “inequitable conduct” to the “structural similarity” brew, and the plot truly thickens.  But there’s enough schizophrenia about the structural differences between one prior art compound called Schmutz X and…

Allergan Victory in ALPHAGAN® P Patent Infringemet Suit

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware handed Allergan, Inc. (NYSE:AGN) a victory last week in its patent infringement lawsuit brought against Exela PharmSci, Inc., Exela PharmSci Pvt., Ltd., Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. The defendants had been seeking permission to market generic versions of Allergan’s drugs ALPHAGAN® P, which is indicated for the lowering of intraocular…

PLI Hosts Briefing on Green Technology Patent Litigation

I hardly keep it a secret that the Practising Law Institute is a sponsor of IPWatchdog.com, although not necessarily the views expressed herein, which are mine alone.  Occasionally I engage in some outright promotion activities, and stealing a good idea from the National Public Radio duo — Click & Clack — I sometimes refer to it as coming from the…

Entire Market Value Rule Lives As $357 Million Verdict Dies

The appeal in Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. from the Southern District of California was considered in many quarters as the potentially seminal case on how to calculate damages based on a reasonable royalty using the Georgia-Pacific factors, especially the “entire market value” rule (aka factor 13). That Microsoft and others were currently on the hook to Lucent Technologies…

Twitter Sued for Patent Infringement in S. District of TX

Three weeks ago, TechRadium, Inc., a Texas Corporation with its principal place of business in Sugar Land, Texas, sued Twitter, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Francisco, California, alleging the infringement of US Patent No. 7,130,389, issued on October 31, 2006, and US Patent No. 7,496,183, issued on February 24, 2009, and US Patent…

Merck Wins Singulair Victory Over Teva

Earlier today, Judge Garrett Brown of the United States Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey, issued an Order and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the dispute between between Merck and Teva Pharmaceuticals.  Judge Brown found that the patent in question, US Patent No. 5,565,473, was valid and enforceable, and that the Teva’s Abbreviated New…