Patent & IP news for October 27, 2014

Never too late: if you missed the IPKat last week ... from ipkitten.blogspot.com

Here's the seventeenth successive and, we believe, successful round-up of last week's substantive blog posts for the benefit of readers who missed last week's activity.  The compiler, as ever, is the suave ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Post-settlement infringement: Stretchline makes its mark from patlit.blogspot.com

Stretchline Intellectual Properties Ltd v H&M; Hennes & Mauritz UK Ltd is a Chancery Division, England and Wales, decision of Mr Justice Sales from 14 October. Sales J is not a judge who is normally ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

"A talented kitten called Kate ...": results of the limerick competition from ipkitten.blogspot.com

So much talent, so little cat ...The competition.  On Sunday 19 October the IPKat launched a snap competition to compose a limerick that (i) begins with the line "A talented kitten called Kate" and (ii ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

That BestWater order: it's up to the rightholders to monitor online use of their works from ipkitten.blogspot.com

Last week this blog reported that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had already issued its decision in Case C-348/13 BestWater, and had done so on 21 October last.
Shortly after ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Software as an Abstract Idea from patentlyo.com

Amdocs v. Openet Telecom (E.D.Va. 2014) In yet another case, a district court has invalidated a set of software patents as unduly abstract under Alice Corp., Mayo, and 35 U.S.C. 101 ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Bad Faith Infringement Suit Warrants Doubling of Attorneys’ Fee Award from docketreport.blogspot.com

Following judgment on the pleadings that plaintiff's decision-making patent was invalid as claiming unpatentable subject matter, the court granted defendant's motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and doubled the ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

The Patentee’s Risk of Multiple-Jeopardy from patentlyo.com

In Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill., 402 U.S. 313 (1971), the Supreme Court precluded a patentee from re-asserting a patent that had been found invalid in a separate suit.  Prior to that ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook