Patent & IP news for August 1, 2016

Federal Circuit: Still No Clarity on Definiteness Standard from patentlyo.com

Although non-precedential, Philips v. Zoll Medical (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2016) offers some interesting insight on the Federal Circuit’s approach to indefiniteness. The Patent Act requires that claims be written in a way that ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Common Sense Distinctions in Section 101 Analysis from patentlyo.com

by Dennis Crouch In a short opinion, Judge Taranto has affirmed the lower court ruling that Electric Power Group’s asserted claims lacked subject matter eligibility.  U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843; 8,060 ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Never Too Late: if you missed the IPKat last week from ipkitten.blogspot.com

Filed your Article 28 Declarations? You may have to do them again... The key IP news stories from last week
in one handy package

The EUIPO has recently moved the goalposts on Article 28 and ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

USPTO News Briefs from www.patentdocs.org

By Donald Zuhn -- PTAB Introduces New Patent Review Processing System In a post on the USPTO's "Director's Forum" blog, the Chief Judge for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), David P. Ruschke ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Conference & CLE Calendar from www.patentdocs.org

August 4, 2016 - "Challenging Patents in IPR: Strategies for Filing Petitions -- Determining Whether and When to File, Filing Multiple Petitions on the Same Patent, Constructing Claims" (Strafford) - 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT) August ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Pre-Issuance Letters Advising Defendant of Pending Patent Application are Relevant to Willfulness from docketreport.blogspot.com

The court denied defendants' motion in limine to exclude letters plaintiff sent to defendant before the patent-in-suit issued. "The first letter . . . advised Defendants that a Provisional Application had been filed and recommended that Defendants 'avoid ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Supreme Court Declines to Consider the § 101 Issues of Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics from dunlapcodding.com

Julie Langdon

We have an update to our prior blog post relating to Sequenom v. Ariosa Diagnostics.  On June 27, the Supreme Court denied certiorari to Sequenon, Inc.  As such, the application of § 101 in ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Electric Power Group loses on 101 issue from ipbiz.blogspot.com



This case involves the eligibility for patenting, under
35 U.S.C. § 101, of certain claims of three of Electric
Power Group, LLC’s patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843;
8,060,259 ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Apple wins at CAFC from ipbiz.blogspot.com

From the decision:



GPNE Corp. (“GPNE”) appeals from a final decision of
the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California. GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 108 F. Supp. 3d
839 (N.D ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

CAFC in Murata: stay vs. preliminary injunction from ipbiz.blogspot.com

From the decision


This is an interlocutory appeal from a patent infringement
lawsuit that Murata Machinery USA and
Murata Machinery, Ltd. (collectively “Murata”) filed
against Daifuku Co., Ltd. and Daifuku America Corp.
(collectively “Daifuku”) in ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Wi-Lan v. Apple at CAFC from ipbiz.blogspot.com


From the decision



We reject Apple’s argument that Wi-LAN waived the new
construction of “UL connections” that it raised for the first
time on its motion for reconsideration of summary judgment.
We affirm the ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Letter to Congress from 28 Law Professors & Economists Urging Caution on the VENUE Act from patentlyo.com

In July 2016, I discussed a letter from 45 professors arguing for statutory reforms to limit venue in patent infringement cases.  The letter focused on the “staggering concentration of patent cases in just a few ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook

Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2016) from www.patentdocs.org

By Michael Borella -- Patent owner Electric Power Group asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 7,233,843, 8,060,259, and 8,401,710 against Alstom S.A. and various other parties in the Central District ...

Share via E–mail | Twitter | Facebook