A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Archive for the ‘Patent’ Category

Deference to Plaintiff Trumps Convenience to Parties in Recent Transfer of Infringement Cases
By Insue Kim – Edited by Elise Young

The Federal Circuit upheld the transfer of venue of Elcommerce, from the Eastern District of Texas, emphasizing that there is “‘no requirement under § 1404(a) that a transferee court have jurisdiction over the plaintiff . . . [as long as] the transferee court ha[s] jurisdiction over the defendants in the transferred complaint.’” However, in Barnes & Noble and Apple, district court decisions to deny transfer were upheld on grounds that they were not “clearly and indisputably incorrect . . . .”

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 11 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Flash Digest: News In Brief
By Gea Kang

Facebook looks to provide Internet access viadrones

Michael Jordan emerges victorious in commercial speech case

Apple wins patent for transparent wraparound phone screen

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 9 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Expert Testimony May Be Required to Determine if Patent Specification Adequately Supports Means-Plus-Function Claim
By Geng Chen – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s finding that the system claims in elcommerce’s patent were invalid. The court held that, in order to properly determine if a specification adequately supported a means-plus-function claim, a district court may require expert testimony so that the specification can be understood from the perspective of a person with ordinary skill in the art.

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 2 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Foreseeability Does Not Preclude Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents
By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Elise Young

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant of summary judgment, finding that Ring & Pinion Service Inc.’s (“R&P”) Ziplocker product did not infringe ARB Corporation Ltd.’s (“ARB”) U.S. Patent No. 5,591,098 (“the ’098 patent”). Ring & Pinion Service Inc., slip op. at 2.

Read More...

Posted On Feb - 27 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Circuit Clarifies Scope of Inurement Doctrine; Implicit Direction Sufficient
By Elise Young – Edited by Geng Chen

The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of Solvay’s patent. The court ruled that inurement does not require the inventors to direct reduction to practice, but that authorization is sufficient. As such, Honeywell’s reduction to practice in the United States inured to the original foreign inventors because their agreement implicitly authorized reduction to practice.

Read More...

Posted On Feb - 19 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay

The Silk Road and Mt

By: Chris Crawford and Joshua Vittor This article assumes a base ...

Photo By: Tristan Ferne - CC BY 2.0

Emulsification: Uber

Written by: Michelle Sohn Edited by: Olga Slobodyanyuk Emulsion: A mixture of ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Olga Slobodyanyuk ICANN responds to terrorism victims by claiming domain ...

color_profiling1-309884_203x203

Federal Circuit Appl

By Amanda Liverzani – Edited by Mengyi Wang Digitech Image Technologies, ...

unlock_cell_phone

Unlocking Cell Phone

By Kellen Wittkop – Edited by Insue Kim On July 25, ...