Currently viewing the tag: "patents"

In Internet Patents Corp v. Active Network, the Federal Circuit considered yet another case involving a claim of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The patents at issue were owned by Internet Patents Corporation, a non-practicing entity, and essentially related to “the use of a conventional web browser Back and Forward navigational functionalities [...]

Continue Reading

Can You Copyright Apparel?

On October 27, 2015 By zcrane

On August 19th, 2015, an en banc panel on the Sixth Circuit ruled that cheerleading uniforms are eligible for copyright protection. This decision prompted the losing party, Star Athletica, to request that the panel overturn the decision, citing “immense practical implications” for the apparel industry. The split Sixth Circuit panel found that stripes, chevrons and [...]

Continue Reading

In February of this year, Smartflash LLC was awarded over $530 million in a judgment against Apple for willful patent infringement. The judge voided the award in July based on confusion surrounding his jury instructions which may have led to the jury miscalculate royalties. But this raises a bigger issue: in a world where new [...]

Continue Reading

Apple Unsuccessful in Locking Down Unlock Feature

On September 11, 2015 By Jackson Sattell

I had never really thought about how I unlock my phone until today. And, now that I think about it, I’ve had to learn a bunch of different ways to do it in the last ten years or so: hitting the “Talk” button, sliding a keyboard out, unhinging the screen from the buttons, etc. While [...]

Continue Reading

As is common knowledge in the patent world, this past May, the Federal Circuit upheld a Northern District of California jury verdict in favor of Apple, against Samsung in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2015) with relation to Apple’s design and utility patent claims. This was a massive victory for Apple, and [...]

Continue Reading

To paraphrase the old riddle, when is monopolistic behavior not monopolistic behavior? This question had been argued in federal courts often; yet, when confronted with this riddle, the federal judiciary had reached inconsistent results. In 2013, with its holding in FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. ____ (2013), the Supreme Court believed it laid out a [...]

Continue Reading

China’s anti-trust investigation of the American chip maker Qualcomm came to an end when the chip giant agreed to pay a record fine of about $975 million last Monday. According to the decision issued by China’s National Development and Reform Commission, the royalties Qualcomm collected from Chinese smartphone manufactures were “unfair” and “excessively [...]

Continue Reading

What to Expect After Teva v. Sandoz?

On February 18, 2015 By Emily Gabranski

Less than a month ago, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Teva v. Sandoz, holding that the Court of Appeals must apply a “clear error” standard of review to all factual findings made in patent claim construction. The proper standard of review has been hotly debated for sometime, [...]

Continue Reading

After a series of cases holding software patents invalid in the wake of Alice v. CLS, the Federal Circuit, in DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, encountered a set of software patents that it held to meet subject matter eligibility requirements. The patents in question were directed toward both systems and methods of generating composite [...]

Continue Reading

On July 11, the Federal Circuit released its decision in Digitech v. Electronics for Imaging, the court’s first case involving the boundaries of patent eligible subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank. The Federal Circuit applied the [...]

Continue Reading