Filewrapper-old

Is the Supreme Court Re-Aiming Markman?
October 17, 2014

    Post by Alex Christian The 1996 United States Supreme Court decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments established a landmark change for claim construction in patent infringement cases. That case established that the meaning of the claim language of a patent is a matter of law for a judge to decide, and not a matter of fact that should be determined by the jury. Since the decision, what is now known as a "C....... Read More


    Federal Circuit Schedules Oral Hearing in First Appeal of Inter Partes Review
    October 14, 2014

      Post by Jonathan Kennedy The Federal Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for the first appeal of an inter partes review ("IPR") decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"). Oral arguments have beenscheduled for November 3, 2014. The appeal involves a number of interesting issues. First, it arises from the first IPR filed with the PTAB—Garmin USA, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techno....... Read More


      Internet Discussion Systems as Prior Art
      June 10, 2014

        The Federal Circuit's recent decision inSuffolk Technologies, LLC, v. AOL Inc., and Google Inc., adds another item to the list of "printed publications" that may preclude patenting of a claimed invention: posts on internet newsgroups. In June 2012 Suffolk Technologies, LLC sued Google Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,081,835 ("the '835 patent"), related to "methods a....... Read More


        Competing Without Practicing?Preliminary Injunctions for Patent Infringement
        April 24, 2014

          InTrebo Manufacturing, Inc., v. Firefly Equipment, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction for patent infringement does not need to practice the patent at issue in order to receive an injunction, so long as it sells a competing product. Trebro brought suit alleging that FireFly's sod harvester product infringed its U.S. Patent No. 8,336,638, and seeking a preliminary i....... Read More


          New and Useful - August 26, 2013
          August 26, 2013

            · InUniversity of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Federal Circuit held that a patent lawsuit between a state university and the officers of another state university is not a controversy between two states. The case began when the University of Utah (“UUtah”) sued the Max Planck Institute and the University of Massachusetts (“UMass”) to correct inventorship of two paten....... Read More


            New and Useful - July 10, 2013
            July 10, 2013

              · InConvolve v. Compaq Computer the Federal Circuit affirmed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruling that Compaq Computer Corp., Seagate Technology, LLC., and Seagate Technology, Inc. did not misappropriate 11 of 15 alleged trade secrets from Convolve, Inc. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that 8 claims of U....... Read More


              New and Useful - July 8, 2013
              July 08, 2013

                · The Federal Circuit inUltramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC held that the district court erred in holding that the subject matter of U.S. Patent No. 7,346,545 ('545) is not a "process" within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded this case stating the claims were not abstract and were patent eligible. The '545 patent claims a meth....... Read More


                Intrinsic Evidence Can Provide Adequate Support to Overcome Indefiniteness
                May 01, 2013

                  In Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., the Federal Circuit reversed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York finding a patent invalid for indefiniteness, relying on intrinsic evidence. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (“Biosig”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,337,753 (“the ’753 patent”). The ’753 patent is directed to a heart rate monit....... Read More


                  New and Useful - April 23, 2013
                  April 23, 2013

                    · InK-Tech Telecoms v. Time Warner Cable, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the standard for evaluating the adequacy of complaints alleging direct patent infringement remains Form 18 of the Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Form 18"). K-Tech filed separate complaints against Direct TV and Time Warner Cable (“TWC”) on the same day, alleging infringeme....... Read More


                    New and Useful - April 10, 2013
                    April 10, 2013

                      · InIn re Hubbell the Federal Circuit confirmed the rejection of all of the pending claims in an application, filed with Jeffrey Hubbell, Jason Schense, Andreas Zisch, and Heike Hall as named inventors. The invention disclosed in the application was based on research performed while all of the named inventors were at California Institute of Technology (CalTech). As a result, the application is assig....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.