Much has been written about what the Supreme Court decided in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. However, the case is more important for what the Court did not decide, than for what was actually decided. On June 2, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision concerning what constitutes indirect infringement of a patent. […]
A patent must be “definite”: it must particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Otherwise, the patent is not valid. 35 U.S.C. § 282 ¶ 2(3). On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments unanimously decided the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim […]
The Patent Act provides, in 35 U.S.C. § 285, that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” In 2005, and the Federal Circuit restrictively interpreted the statute in Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., holding that a case is “exceptional” only where (1) “there has been […]
The federal false advertising statute, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B), provides a remedy for some commercial misstatements and half-truths. Specifically, the statute provides, Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any . . . false or misleading description of fact, or false or […]
When a patent owner sues another for infringement, the patent owner must prove infringement. The Supreme Court ruled on January 22, 2014, in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, that this burden of proof still applies when a patent licensee sues the patent owner for a declaratory judgment that certain products do not infringe […]
On June 17, 2013, in FTC v. Actavis, the Supreme Court resolved a long-brewing battle between the FTC and the antitrust and patent defense bar over whether reverse-payment patent settlements between patentees and alleged infringers violate federal antitrust laws. These settlements are categorized as reverse-payments because the settlement arises in the following circumstance: Alleged infringer […]
On June 13, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that 1) naturally-occurring DNA sequences are not patentable, even if they have been isolated from their natural environment, and 2) sequences of complimentary DNA (cDNA) are patentable. The Court’s recent decision in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. ____ […]
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 11-982, on the issue of whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party’s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the […]
The Supreme Court has addressed the first question of patentability – whether the invention falls within the scope of patentable subject matter – for the second time in three years with its opinion in Mayo Collaborative Services, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. ___ (2012). Through unanimous decision, the Supreme Court has provided […]
The United Supreme Court on January 18, 2012 in Golan v. Holder rejected a challenge to Congress’ authority to modify the copyright status of certain foreign works previously in the public domain. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg rejected petitioners’ assertion that once a work has entered the public domain it must forever remain there, […]
