Filewrapper-old

Shifting Pre-Trial Strategy in the Wake of Alice and Ultramercial
December 04, 2014

    Post by Paul S. Mazzola Four recent Supreme Court cases involving patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International ) have had the practical effect of heightening the standard for patentability. However, these cases may also be al....... Read More


    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


      Supreme Court Determines Internet Service Violates Copyrights
      June 26, 2014

        The Supreme Court has issued its much anticipateddecision in American Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. The Court held that an internet service provided by Aereo—which allows subscribes to watch television programs over the internet contemporaneous with the programs as they are broadcasted over the air—violates of a copyright owner's exclusive right to perform a work publicly under the 1976 Co....... Read More


        Generic Computer Implementation Cannot Save Patent-Ineligible Abstract Idea
        June 23, 2014

          On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated opinion inAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The Petitioner, Alice Corporation ("Alice Corp.") is the assignee of the four patents at issue which disclose method, system, and media claims related to a computerized scheme for mitigating "settlement risk." Respondents CLS Bank International and CLS Services Ltd. ("CLS") o....... Read More


          Supreme Court Holds Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement
          June 03, 2014

            This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, concluding that an act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. The decision unanimously held that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 27(b) when no one has directly infringed the patent under Section 271(a) ....... Read More


            Supreme Court Defines Scope of Definiteness Required in Patent Claims
            June 02, 2014

              Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. defining the standard for definiteness necessary to meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, second paragraph. The decision unanimously rejected the "insolubly ambiguous" standard previously employed by the Federal Circuit to determine whether patent claims meet the statutory requirement to "partic....... Read More


              Supreme Court Issues Indefiniteness and Inducement Decisions
              June 02, 2014

                The Supreme Court this week issued its decisions in two much anticipated IP cases. The Court's decision in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Tech. concludes that at least one underlying act of direct patent infringement must be present for a claim of inducement of infringement. In Nautilus v. BioSig the Court instituted a new standard for indefiniteness, supplanting the existing "insolubly ambiguous" st....... Read More


                Copyright 3-year Statute of Limitations Trumps Laches Defense
                May 20, 2014

                  PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC. Frank Petrella wrote two screenplays and one book based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta. One of the screenplays, registered in 1963, identifies Patrella as the sole author, written in collaboration with LaMotta. LaMotta and Patrella assigned their rights in the screenplay, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions, Inc. in 1976, who in turn sold....... Read More


                  Supreme Court Revises Standards for Sanctions in Exceptional Patent Cases
                  April 29, 2014

                    Two U.S. Supreme Court opinions issued today—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.—have changed the framework for which exceptional cases are analyzed under § 285 of the Patent Act. For years, the controlling case with regard to § 285 of the Patent Act was Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int'l, Inc. In....... Read More


                    Who May Bring a Federal False Advertising Suit?
                    April 02, 2014

                      The Supreme Court's recent decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. prescribed the appropriate framework for determining whether a plaintiff has standing in a false advertising action under the 15 U.S.C. 1125(a). Prior to this decision, there were three competing approaches to determining whether a plaintiff has standing to bring suit under the Lanham Act: · ....... 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.