Patent & IP news for January 22, 2016

Q&A from Webinar on Top Patent Law Stories of 2015 from www.patentdocs.org

By Kevin E. Noonan, Michael Borella & Donald Zuhn -- Earlier today, we presented a live webinar on the "Top Patent Law Stories of 2015." The webinar covered seven of the twenty stories that made it onto ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

GE moves to Boston: a changing paradigm for 21st century technology? from ipkitten.blogspot.com


Sometimes this Kat cannot resist speculating about some grand IP idea that has the potential to transcend the moment. This urge was recently aroused in hearing about the decision of the General Electric company to ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Customizable Merchandise Preview Patent Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 from docketreport.blogspot.com

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss because the asserted claims of plaintiff’s customizable merchandise preview patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea. "Plaintiff ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Patent Term Adjustment: Erroneous and later Withdrawn Restriction Requirement Still Counts as a Section 132 Notice from patentlyo.com

  By Dennis Crouch Pfizer v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2016) [PfizerLee Opinion] In this case, the Federal Circuit has refused Wyeth’s (now Pfizer’s) plea for more patent-term-adjustment (PTA).[1] The basic issue is involves ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Federal Circuit: Board Must Explain its Decisions from patentlyo.com

by Dennis Crouch In the non-precedential Cutsforth v. MotivePower decision, the Federal Circuit has vacated a PTAB inter partes review (IPR) final decision — holding that “the Board did not adequately describe its reasoning for finding ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Broadbased support for Samsung's Supreme Court petition in Apple's design patents case: cert looms large from www.fosspatents.com

Persuading the Supreme Court to review a decision is normally a long shot. Even when many pundits predict certiorari, it often doesn't materialize (case in point: Oracle v. Google). In recent years, however, patent ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Apple was paid $1B for rights to feature Google search engine from ipcloseup.wordpress.com

It’s no accident that Google is top dog for search on iPhones and other Apple products. It cost the company $1 billion in 2014 according to possibly leaked documents.   It’s being reported that ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

EPO Revokes Monsanto Patent On Virus-Resistant Melon from www.ip-watch.org

The European Patent Office on 20 January revoked a patent held by Monsanto on virus-resistant melons for technical reasons, much to the glee of opponents of patents on conventional plants. [updated]

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Pfizer loses at CAFC on length of a patent term adjustment (“PTA”) for U.S. Patent No. 8,153,768 from ipbiz.blogspot.com

The CAFC affirmed ED Va and noted general issues with 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1).

Judge Newman dissented:


I respectfully dissent.
The panel majority’s ruling on patent term
adjustment is in conflict ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

CAFC issues partial remand in Lumen View: the district court did not properly explain its determination of reasonable attorney fees from ipbiz.blogspot.com

The CAFC affirmed the finding of exceptional case but remanded as to attorney fee calculation in Lumen View Technology.

link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1275.Opinion.1-20-2016.1.PDF

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook