On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court resolved an issue on which the various federal circuit courts were split: can a copyright plaintiff bring a lawsuit once they have filed an application for registration with the Copyright Office, or must they wait until [...]
UNDERSTANDING 35 U.S.C. § 101 AND THE ALICE DECISION Overview Section 101 sets forth the type of inventions which are entitled to be patented (assuming they meet the other requirements for patentability, such as novelty (under Section 102) and non-obviousness (under Section 103)). [...]
In the case of Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that changes to Section 102 of the America Invents Act did not change the meaning of the “on-sale” bar as it was previously interpreted. [...]
The USPTO has issued modified subject-matter eligibility (“Section 101”) guidance. The new guidance recognizes the need for increased clarity and consistency in how Section 101 is applied. Under current Section 101 case law, an invention may not be patented if it is [...]
Weide & Miller issued 88 patents in 2018, leading Nevada based firms.
In the case of Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. (Federal Circuit, November 9, 2018), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether assignee estoppel applies to prevent an inventor/assignor from later challenging a patent in an [...]
Weide & Miller issued 34 patents in the first half of 2018.
In the case of WesternGeco Ltd. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s rule against extraterritorial lost profits for infringement of U.S. Patents. The Supreme Court ruled that 35 U.S.C. § 271(f), permits a patent owner to recover [...]
In a close 5-4 decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, the Supreme Court found that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s previous practice of agreeing to review some challenged claims and deny review of others in America Invents Act patent reviews, is [...]
The America Invents Act created a new vehicle for challengers to attach patents: the Inter-Parties Reexamination or “IPR”. In the case of Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, Oil States contended that the newly created IPR was unconstitutional because [...]