Last month, in a February 8, 2018 Order, the Central District of California vacated its injunction in Greg Young Publishing, Inc. v. Zazzle, Inc., 2:16-cv-04587-SVW-KS, in which Zazzle was “permanently enjoined from infringing any of the exclusive rights in 17 U.S.C. § 106 with respect to Plaintiff’s copyrighted works…” See Permanent Injunction and Order, October 27, 2017. … Continue Reading
Section 337 of the U.S. trade laws provides the U.S. International Trade Commission with the authority to prevent “unfair practices in import trade.” While the statute is best known for its provisions that allow the ITC to exclude imported goods that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, the statute also provides more generally for the ITC’s … Continue Reading
For a third time in the past thirty days, a Judge Moore-led panel has found in favor of a patent owner defending its claims from an eligibility challenge under Section 101. In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Nos. 2016-2315, 2016-2341 (March 8, 2018), a panel majority (Moore, Bryson) upheld a lower court’s post-trial ruling … Continue Reading
On February 14, 2018, a Federal Circuit panel in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 2017-1452, overturned a Middle District of Florida decision that held patent claims to systems and methods for importing data into viewable form on a computer to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. According to the majority opinion … Continue Reading
As reported in our prior blog post, the Federal Circuit appears poised to decide whether a corporation can be sued for patent infringement in any federal district in its state of incorporation. In a recent order in the Central District of California case of Realtime Data LLC v. Nexenta Systems, Inc., No. 2-17-cv-07690-28 SJO (JCx), the … Continue Reading
The requirement of establishing a “domestic industry” in articles protected by a patent is a unique and important aspect of Section 337 litigation. Without it, the statute’s exclusionary remedies against imports that infringe a patent cannot be invoked. The statute enumerates the types of activities that can satisfy the “economic prong” of the domestic industry … Continue Reading
Under a pilot program initiated in 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) may designate an investigation for early disposition if it believes that there is a potentially case-dispositive issue warranting the program’s speedy (100-day) treatment. Since the program’s inception, the ITC has employed it sparingly, with only a handful of investigations garnering entry into … Continue Reading
Challenges to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have become so routine in patent litigation that it is easy to overlook the opinions that seem to issue almost daily from the district courts and, less frequently, from the Federal Circuit. If one were to judge solely by the tenor of recent cert petitions filed with … Continue Reading
As we previously reported (here), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in an August 2017 decision in Oil Dri Corp. v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 1-15-cv-01067 (N.D. Ill., Aug. 2, 2017) joined the seeming trend of courts interpreting estoppel against patent challengers in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings more broadly … Continue Reading
On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011. The case stems from an opinion of the Federal Circuit in which a divided panel affirmed a jury’s verdict of patent infringement and its damages award of $12.5 million in reasonable royalties but reversed the jury’s additional … Continue Reading
The patent venue statute provides that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (emphasis added). In TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1517 (2017), the Supreme Court held that a corporate defendant resides in the state … Continue Reading
The America Invents Act of 2011, which ushered in a new regime for post-grant patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), provides that any patent challenger initiating an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the PTO “may not assert” an invalidity ground in a patent case in U.S. district court or in the U.S. … Continue Reading
Is a patent-holder precluded from recovering lost-profits damages for patent infringement if those profits would have been earned on contracts for services to be performed outside of U.S. territory? That is the $93.4 million question presented by the cert petition in WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011 and that the Supreme Court is … Continue Reading
The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has denied respondents’ requests for entry into the ITC’s pilot program for early case disposition in a trio of recent orders: in Certain Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Materials Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1084 (Nov. 17, 2017); and in the companion cases of Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware … Continue Reading
On Friday, December 15, 2017, the US Department of Justice and Department of State announced the launch of an IP Law Enforcement Coordinator Network. The Network focuses on international trademark counterfeiting, copyright piracy and other forms of intellectual property rights infringement across the world, spanning all industry sectors. Though the components of the Network are … Continue Reading
In its May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court shocked the patent world by restricting the range of permissible venues in patent infringement cases for domestic corporations. (See our prior posts, here and here). The Federal Circuit has now found – in … Continue Reading
Under a pilot program initiated in 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) may designate an investigation for early disposition if the ITC believes that there is a potentially case-dispositive issue warranting the program’s speedy (100-day) treatment. Since the program’s inception, however, the ITC has designated only a handful of cases for early disposition. Although … Continue Reading
For the second time in the past few months, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has decided to maintain an exclusion order despite final unpatentability findings by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The investigation is Certain Foam Footwear, Inv. No. 337-TA-567, which resulted in a general exclusion order in July 2011 based on … Continue Reading
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has determined to maintain the $650,000.00 penalty it imposed for violation of a consent order entered in a Section 337 investigation, notwithstanding that the parties and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) supported rescinding the penalty.… Continue Reading
Half of the world’s population is now online. That’s around 4 billion people worldwide with access to the internet. Little wonder then that intellectual property rights holders are having to take active steps to respond to the infringement challenges that this multi-territorial digital marketplace presents. Occasionally, governments respond directly to curb infringement online. For example, … Continue Reading
The Federal Circuit has issued its long-awaited ruling in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2015-1177, with the majority of the en banc court agreeing that the requirement by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that patent owners have the burden to prove the patentability of amended claims proffered during inter partes review (IPR) … Continue Reading
The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has decided to review in part an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)’s finding of violation of Section 337 based on patent infringement in Certain Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1010 (Sept. 29, 2017). While review of patent issues is not unusual, the Notice of … Continue Reading
In the UK, designs of three dimensional items (which are not artistic works) are protected against copying by a separate intellectual property right known as unregistered design right (UDR). For the purposes of an infringement action, it is critical to know which features of a design are protected by UDR and which are not. However, … Continue Reading
In Part One of this post, I summarized the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling on patent eligibility in Visual Memory LLC v NVIDIA Corp. In this second part I look at Judge Hughes’ dissent and the majority’s response to Hughes. Dissent Judge Hughes believed the claims could not be described at a lower level of abstraction … Continue Reading
