Patent Law Weblog
Year: 2020
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — In the latest development in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC"), Broad filed its priority motion (which, as Senior Party they…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Last fall the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, in Interference no. 106,115, granted leave to Junior Party The University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC") to file a dispositive motion for improper inventorship against Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute…
-
By Michael Borella — This decision is bad. Not an American Axle level of bad, but still quite far from good. Simio sued FlexSim in the District of Utah for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 8,156,468. FlexSim moved for dismissal on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101, on the grounds that the…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — At the end of October, in Interference No. 106,115 between Senior Party The Broad Institute, Harvard University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (collectively, "Broad") and Junior Party the University of California/Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (collectively, "CVC"), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) consented to…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — After more than two decades of being the red-headed stepchild of patent infringement before the Federal Circuit, infringement under the doctrine of equivalents has made a dramatic comeback in the past few years, the Court affirming plaintiffs asserting their patents under the doctrine six times (versus denying DOE infringement on…
-
The authors and contributors of Patent Docs wish their readers and families a Happy Holidays! It is also our hope that all of our readers, along with their families and friends, stay safe during the holiday. Publication of Patent Docs will resume on December 27th.
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Any patent litigant unwilling to acquiesce to an adverse judgment from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can appeal to the Federal Circuit. 28 U.S. Code § 141. But the right to appeal is not the same as the wisdom of filing an appeal, as illustrated by the decision of…
-
By Michael Borella — Adaptive Streaming, the owner of U.S. Patent No. 7,047,305, sued Netflix in the Central District of California for alleged infringement. Netflix moved to dismiss the case on the pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims did not meet the subject matter eligibility requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. The District…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — Stipulating to infringement after a contrary claim construction is a conventional stratagem for a losing party to have a final judgment that can be challenged before the Federal Circuit. The risk of course, is that if the Court finds the district court's construction to be correct, the stipulation precludes appellate…
-
By Kevin E. Noonan — The transcendental conundrum in patent law in these times is how to overcome the misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decisions on patent eligibility law by district courts and the Federal Circuit. That these courts cannot overcome the precedential tangle they have created is firmly established by the Court's own decisions;…
Patent Docs 