The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. 2017-2059, holding that the PTAB did not err in concluding that a person of ordinary skill would not have combined certain prior art identified by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. … Continue Reading
In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corporation, No.2015-1242 (en banc), the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s longstanding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)’s time bar for inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions, finding that the service of any civil complaint for patent infringement— even if later dismissed—starts the clock on the statute’s one-year … Continue Reading
A recent decision from the US District Court for the Western District of Texas suggests that district courts are taking a more expansive view of what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” for purposes of establishing venue in patent infringement cases. Board of Regents, The Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Medtronic PLC, Case … Continue Reading
The United States Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a patent owner can, at least in some situations, recover lost profits for the unauthorized use of its patented technology abroad. The 7-2 decision in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. overturned the Federal Circuit’s opinion, which relied on the presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, No. 2017-2330 that has important ramifications for litigants seeking attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act. Section 285 authorizes a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.” In Octane Fitness, … Continue Reading
Following a rejection by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under section 102(f) for a rehabilitative dog harness, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the rejection because the applicant “did not himself solely invent the subject matter sought to be patented.” In re VerHoef, No. 2017-1976 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2018). Jeff VerHoef built … Continue Reading
Further to our colleagues’ prior blogs on this matter (here, here, and here), on March 27, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (“patent venue statute”) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions or … Continue Reading
