Intellectual Property

As a patent owner involved in patent litigation, you must consider numerous factors when negotiating a settlement agreement. An important contemplation is timing, because finalizing a settlement agreement at the wrong juncture of your legal proceedings can have devastating results.

We’ll start with the first question a patent attorney might ask you: Have you told anyone about your invention?

The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”).

Three attorneys from Mintz Levin’s IP and Employment practices are featured writers in the American Bar Association’s Business Law Today publication, explaining the ins-and-outs of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA).

The Federal Circuit relied on Nautilus to preserve functional language of a method claim in a decision published last Friday.  In Cox Comm, Inc. v. Sprint, No. 2016-1013, the Federal Circuit held that the term “processing system” did not render the asserted claims indefinite.

On remand from the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016), the Federal Circuit recently issued a revised decision in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc., No. 2013-1668 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The decision provides insight into the court’s interpretation of the Halo standard and enhanced damages.

Two years after the Central District of California invalidated two 3-D animation patents under Section 101, the Federal Circuit reversed that court’s decision, finding that the lower court oversimplified the claims of a computer-related invention.

On September 9, 2016, Apotex Inc. filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Amgen Inc. v. Apotex Inc., Case No. 2016-1308.

Several months ago, we were struck with the question of whether, as counsel for a patent owner at the ITC, our clients’ case would benefit from a Markman hearing. Claim construction during an ITC investigation was routinely performed as part of the evidentiary hearing in an investigation, rather than as part of earlier Markman proceedings.

Think you’ve won on validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and your claims are safe on appeal? “Not so fast,” says the Federal Circuit in Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook Inc., Nos. 2015-1649 through 2015-1563 (Fed. Cir., Sep. 9, 2016) (nonprecedential) (per curiam).

The deadline has come and gone for the ITC and patentee Align to file petitions for certiorari seeking review by the Supreme Court of the Federal Circuit’s decision in ClearCorrect. On November 10, 2015, a panel of the Federal Circuit found that the ITC does not have jurisdiction to bar digital downloads or imports where there was no physical article to bar from importation.

American corporations are facing an ever increasing threat of misappropriation of their valuable trade secrets through industrial espionage, defined as the theft of a company’s trade secrets by an actor intending to convert the trade secret to the economic benefit of a competitor.

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone.

On August 3, 2016, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a post-grant review decision that bears one striking similarity to its previous post-grant review decisions, namely invalidation of claims under Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, further bolstering the salience of patent ineligibility challenges in post-grant proceedings.

On July 5, 2016, in United States v. Nosal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the definition of “trade secret,” finding that data derived from a compilation of publicly available information can constitute a protectable trade secret in a case involving allegations under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA).

In our sixth "IP for Start-Ups” video, “Getting the Correct Named Inventors on a Patent”, Mike discusses the importance of including all of the inventors on a patent and why it's important to name anyone who has a reasonable proximity to the invention.

An invention cannot be patented if it was ready for patenting and was subject to a commercial offer for sale more than one year before the application was filed.

Effective June 29, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) implemented a pilot program to provide for earlier review of patent applications pertaining to cancer immunotherapy.

Arming software-patentees with additional precedent in favor of eligibility for software patents post-Alice, the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2016 handed down its decision in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., No. 2015-1763, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016), vacating the lower court’s decision.

In our fifth "IP for Start-Ups” video, “Copyrights versus Patents to Protect Software Innovations”, Mike discusses the pros and cons of using copyrights or patents to protect your software.