01/18/2017

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. 6,568,120 B2

Ice Fishing Trap

Inventors: Kasmir Smolinski 

01/10/2017

Two Years After Alice v. CLS Bank 

Jasper L. Tran

As of June 19, 2016, courts have examined 568 challenged patents brought under § 101 motions citing Alice, resulting in 190 valid patents and 378 patents invalidated with an average invalidation rate of 66.5%. Specifically, the Federal Circuit upheld 3 patents and invalidated 34 patents—an average invalidation rate of 91.9%. Also, courts have decided a total of 500 motions brought under § 101 citing Alice, resulting in 109 validation holdings and 391 invalidation holdings with an average invalidation rate of 78.2%. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has decided 26 motions, resulting in 2 validation holdings and 24 invalidation holdings with an average invalidation rate of 92.3%. The district courts have decided 251 motions, resulting in 84 validation holdings and 167 invalidation holdings with an average invalidation rate of 66.5%. The PTAB has decided 209 motions, resulting in 23 validation holdings and 186 invalidation holdings with an average invalidation rate of 89.7%.

12/14/2016

The Bedeviling Mess of ePlus, Contempt, and Article III

Wayne A. Kalkwarf and Matthew D. Tanner

ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.1 concerns the cancellation of patent claims. Although a judicial decision cancelling a patent claim would not necessarily warrant significant scrutiny, ePlus addresses an issue beyond the scope of routine patent jurisprudence. The decision involves a basic constitutional power of the judicial branch.

11/23/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
              Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 8,375,847 B1

Winch for Turkey Deep Fryers

Inventors: William P. Anganes

11/21/2016

Review: The Criminal Law Of Intellectual Property and Information: Cases and Materials, 2nd Edition

Asha Puttaiah

The Criminal Law of Intellectual Property and Information: Cases and Materials, 2nd Edition by Geraldine Moohr, Jacqueline Lipton, and Irina Manta (2015, West Academic.)

A law enforcement officer buys original copyrighted movies for his video rental shop. In order to prevent damage to his newly acquired video property, he produces one copy of each original movie and rents the copy while keeping the originals in a safe place. Has he violated the copyright owner’s federally recognized property right with his self-created ‘insurance’ program? Is it a criminal violation? Is a civil infringement? Does his distribution business implicate the Commerce Clause because it entails interstate commerce? If yes, does this invoke a federal criminal statute? Or is it merely a localized property right infringement? Is it merely bad or good business practice? Does property right infringement constitute theft? Does the law enforcement officer’s role as a business owner affect what he is authorized to do with the copyrighted video in comparison to what he is authorized to do as a private citizen? As a law enforcement officer, should he have known better? One last question – Is your head spinning yet?

11/17/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. U.S. 8,549,699 B1

Illuminated Leaf Blower

Inventors: Francisco A. Domingo

11/15/2016

Michael B. Pierorazio

In re: Lawrence Everatt Anderson,

http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1156.Opinion.10-11-2016.1.PDF

The Federal Circuit holds that “the speed being displayed on the display for use by a motorist in determining a route of travel” is a non-limiting statement of intended use because the “‘for use’ language does not add a structural limitation to the claimed system or method.”
11/09/2016

Written By: Roland Casillas
      Web and Blog Editor

Patent No. US 4,189,904 A

Leaf Mulcher Attachment for Lawn Mowers

Inventors: Alexander D. Parker

© 2000-2014, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy