Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Linfo IP, LLC v. Trustpilot, Inc., dismissing an appeal brought by Linfo IP, LLC as moot. The dismissal followed Linfo and Trustpilot, Inc.’s settlement of their dispute while the appeal was still pending.

On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the dismissal  of Etison LLC d/b/a ClickFunnels’ patent infringement suit against HighLevel Inc., holding the disputed website creation patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While the CAFC found that the district court erred by treating a single claim as representative of all asserted claims without adequately addressing ClickFunnels’ argument that the two dependent claims at issue contained a distinct limitation,  the panel ultimately concluded that the error was harmless

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Thursday in TrackTime, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, vacating a district court’s indefiniteness ruling on one TrackTime patent. It also affirmed a jury verdict of invalidity on a related patent asserted against Amazon.com Services LLC and Audible, Inc.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the UK Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Apple’s appeal of a $502 million judgment setting a global 4G licensing rate with Optis Technology; the Federal Circuit remands a Delaware district court ruling invalidating TrackTime’s patents for reconsideration under intervening precedent on indefiniteness analysis from Dyfan v. Target Corp.; and more.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing on Tuesday, titled “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40.” The hearing examined the changes that have occurred over the last four decades of the internet and featured witnesses including celebrities, academics and computer and media experts.

Over the past year, while advising clients on standard essential patent (SEP) matters and following the rapid development of SEP litigation in Brazil, I found myself revisiting a question that foreign clients often ask: Is Brazil really a jurisdiction where patent rights can be effectively enforced? The question is particularly common among technology companies evaluating enforcement strategies across multiple jurisdictions. While Brazil is one of the world’s largest markets, many foreign patent owners remain less familiar with its courts than those of the United States, Europe, China or Japan. Recent SEP litigation provides an interesting lens through which to answer that question.

Patent Bots is a SaaS company built by patent attorneys, for patent attorneys. Our tools help IP professionals at some of the world’s top firms and corporations work smarter, from drafting and prosecution to examiner analytics and prior art research. We’re a small team with a big footprint in the IP world, and we’re looking for a Product Specialist to be the human face of our product for attorneys who are already knocking on our door. Patent attorneys and IP professionals will come to you curious, evaluating, or mid-trial, and your job is to turn that curiosity into confidence. You’ll run demos, answer hard product questions, and help prospects figure out whether Patent Bots is the right fit for their practice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, affirming a preliminary injunction that blocks Hetero Labs Limited from launching a generic version of the neurological drug Nuedexta. The court also vacated a district court order that had excused Otsuka from posting a bond pending appeal, remanding the issue for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Dyk dissented in part from the majority’s claim construction and would have reversed the injunction.

Most patent attorneys know the Jerome Lemelson story—the prolific inventor whose aggressive use of continuation and continuation-in-part applications resulted in some patents remaining pending for decades, earning the label of “submarine patents.” While Lemelson’s tactics sparked controversy and eventual legislative reforms aimed at curbing undue delays, one principle emerged clearly from his experiences: new matter in patent law must receive a new priority date…. To patent applicants, 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) means that the detailed description of their non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made. In practice, this is an extremely harsh standard, and is disproportionately punitive to small business inventors who lack the deep pockets to absorb repeated filing costs and years of delay.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in a Per Curiam opinion, today affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling that the mark MON AMI is confusingly similar to the previously registered mark, AMÌ, and that MON AMI could therefore not be registered.

Patent monetization is often discussed as if the hard part begins when a patent owner makes the decision to license, sell, finance, or enforce its patent assets. That is a mistake and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the difficulties and complexities of patent monetization. By the time a patent owner is sitting across the table from a potential licensee, buyer, lender, litigation funder, or accused infringer, much of the outcome has already been fully determined. The real work begins years earlier in preparation for monetization.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s closely watched decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, which together clarified the scope of presidential authority to remove certain federal officials from office, the Court today denied the Trump Administration’s request to stay a lower court order temporarily restoring Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter to office while her challenge to her removal proceeds in court. The Court emphasized, however, that “[t]he denial of the application is not a ruling on the merits of the legal issues presented in the litigation,” leaving the substantive dispute for a later day.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.

On the same day it granted a trademark petition, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a number of patent cases as its term nears an end, including the closely-watched case of Hyatt v. Squires, which challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) approach to the doctrine of prosecution laches. In addition to the Hyatt case, the Court also denied cert today in Finesse Wireless LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et. al.; Polar Electro Oy v. Firstbeat Technologies Oy; and Ortiz & Assoc. Consulting, LLC v. Vizio, Inc.