• 01.28.19

    Supreme Court Holds Sale Requiring Confidentiality Can Qualify as Prior Art

    In Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the sale of an invention to a party who is contractually obligated to keep the invention confidential can qualify as prior art to place the invention “on ...

  • 12.06.18

    Invention for Navigating Complex 3-D Worksheet Held Patent-Eligible

    In Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, the Federal Circuit held that an invention for navigating through complex three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets was patent-eligible subject matter.

  • 10.24.18

    Correcting Inventorship in Pending Application Cannot Be Done in District Court

    In Pappalardo v. Stevins, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action filed in federal court by a person requesting to be named the sole inventor on a pending patent application, ruling that such an action could not be filed until after a patent is issued from the ...

  • 06.28.18

    DJ Khaled Files Suit to Protect Son’s Name

    In an effort to protect the rights of his “instantly famous” infant son, DJ Khaled filed a new lawsuit in New York federal court against a company attempting to register trademarks of his son’s name.

  • 09.28.17

    Looking Through an IP Lens at Blockchain and Cryptocurrency

    With headline news ranging from J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon and Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Winklevoss twins and Floyd “Money” Mayweather, the hype surrounding cryptocurrency—think bitcoin, ethereum and an ever-expanding list of niche altcoins—has gone mainstream.

  • 07.13.17

    SCOTUS: For Patent Venue, Domestic Corporations ‘Reside’ Where Incorporated

    On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC—rejecting long-standing Federal Circuit precedent and re-establishing stricter venue requirements for patent infringement litigation involving a domestic corporate defendant.

  • 12.15.16

    Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple

    On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a design patent under Section 289 of the Patent Act, the relevant "article of manufacture" can be limited to one or more individual ...

  • 10.25.16

    Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo

    On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as had been widely anticipated, overturned the Federal Circuit's "inelastic" Seagate standard for awarding enhanced ...

  • 07.07.16

    Supreme Court: Status Quo in Cuozzo

    On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, where it rejected challenges to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) process and held that (1) PTAB decisions regarding whether to institute IPR proceedings are by statute not subject to ...

  • 06.06.16

    Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016: An Overview

    The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) was signed into law on May 11, 2016 and gives trade secret owners a federal cause of action for injunctive relief and monetary damages for the misappropriation of trade secrets, while also providing employee protections.