Intellectual Property

On July 5, the Federal Circuit issued another important decision regarding the meaning of certain provisions of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

Patent applicants who have filed a priority application (such as a U.S. Provisional application) may wish to abandon and then refile that priority application to extend the time available for filing a utility application.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is final and non-appealable, thereby not being subject to judicial review, and (2) it is appropriate for the Board to construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation, rather than their plain and ordinary meaning as in district court litigation.

In some of the first decisions under the newly enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act, on June 10 and 22, 2016, United States District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Cook, No. 16-cv-03166-JST (N.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) that prevents a sales consultant from accessing, using or sharing confidential data that she allegedly stole from her former employer before leaving the company in violation of trade secret laws and employment agreements.

In our fourth "IP for Start-Ups" video, "Are U.S. Patents Good Outside of the USA?", Mike discusses how geography plays into patent protection, both inside the U.S. and internationally.

This past Thursday the Brexit vote sent shockwaves around world, including the IP community and in particular with respect to IP rights in the UK and Europe. But concerns at the moment are speculative as nothing yet has changed.

The Federal Circuit yesterday issued a decision that will make many patent owners and IP practitioners breathe easier.  In Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp. the Court reversed a district court holding that a continuation application filed on the same day that its parent application issued is not entitled to the parent priority date.

As our weekly "IP for Start-Ups" series continues, IP attorney Mike Van Loy discusses the nuances behind writing claims that are both broad enough to capture potential infringers and specific enough to show that the patent is not covered by prior art, in our third video, "The Importance of Getting the Claims Right in a Patent".

Check out the second video in our "IP for Start-Ups" series, "The Folly of the 'One Killer Patent' Strategy", below.  Mike talks about the strategic advantage of having a modest patent portfolio, rather than only a single patent.

Protecting your ideas is important, especially as you get your business off the ground.  To kick-off the summer, we're launching our IP for Start-Ups series, with IP attorney Mike Van Loy.

When it comes to Enfish, the PTAB may have just indicated that it prefers to cut bait. In Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-0021 (May 31, 2016), the PTAB held that U.S. Patent No 6,321,201 was void under Alice despite the Federal Circuit’s recent holding in Enfish v. Microsoft.

Software patents have been facing intense scrutiny under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for subject matter eligibility since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice v. CLS Bank decision in 2014.  In the last two years, the patent ecosystem (including USPTO examiners, PTAB, U.S. district courts, and the Federal Circuit) is generally considered unfavorable and sometimes hostile to software patents.

There have been some interesting recent developments, both at the Federal Circuit and the USPTO, regarding subject matter eligibility for patenting as it relates to computer-implemented inventions, software, and other technologies that have been heavily impacted over the past two years by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice v. CLS Bank.

“You sued them. They stay, period.” This is the conclusion a Texas trial court came to when asked to exclude the designated representative of a party from a hearing where an employee of the other party, a direct competitor, would disclose his employer’s trade secrets.

On Thursday, May 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit reversed a lower court’s finding of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as an unpatentable abstract idea, of a software patent concerning a “self-referential” database in Enfish v. Microsoft. In so doing, the Federal Circuit provided some helpful guidance on avoiding Alice rejections for software patents.

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law. This important new legislation creates a federal private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation in which “[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action . . . if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.”

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) is now one signature away from becoming law. On April 4, 2016, the Senate unanimously passed the DTSA and, last week, on April 27th, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the DTSA by a vote of 410-2.

Summary: Appellant appealed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) an obviousness rejection to claims directed to a user interface that displays currency trading information.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued an order denying a petition filed by Merck & Cie for rehearing en banc of an Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding several Merck patents invalid as obvious.

On April 22, 2016, a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, consisting of Judges Prost, Dyk and O’Malley, affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss as moot a patent case involving only cancelled claims.