Remove 2014 Remove Patent Infringement Remove Patent Law
article thumbnail

Patent Law at the Supreme Court February 2022

Patently-O

Qualcomm had previously sued Apple for patent infringement, and Apple responded with a set of inter partes review petitions. The Kessler Doctrine : If you want to really dig into this case, please read my article on the topic that I wrote for an Akron Law review IP symposium issue. 2022)(forthcoming).

article thumbnail

Alice is Alive and Well!

The IP Law Blog

Some things, referred to as patent-ineligible subject matter, are not patentable: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In 2014, the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether an invention is patent-eligible. 208, 216, 219 (2014). Alice Corp. In Repifi Vendor Logistics v.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

I was already like this before you got here: prior use as an exception to patent infringement

Garrigues Blog

In addition, a third party’s use of an invention before its registration by another is also relevant to assess patent infringement. The right of prior use is set forth in article 63 of the current Patents Law of 2015, the wording of which is practically identical to that of article 54 of the earlier Patents Law of 1986.

article thumbnail

Safe Skies Eligibility Petition

Patently-O

David Tropp sued Travel Sentry for patent infringement back in 2006. That was the same year that I first taught a patent law class. Back then, eligibility was almost an unknown concept in patent litigation. 208 (2014). 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l , 573 U.S. Tropp Petition.

article thumbnail

District Court Denies Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Even After Granting Clear Summary Judgment on Noninfringement Grounds

The IP Law Blog

As way of background, in patent infringement cases, Courts are authorized to award “reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party” in “exceptional cases.” Under the Federal Circuit’s holding in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. , ” .

article thumbnail

Alice is Alive and Well!

LexBlog IP

Some things, referred to as patent-ineligible subject matter, are not patentable: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In 2014, the Supreme Court established a two-part test to determine whether an invention is patent-eligible. 208, 216, 219 (2014). Alice Corp. In Repifi Vendor Logistics v.

article thumbnail

Dastar bars false advertising claim against "first of its kind" ads

43(B)log

Vericool didn’t help its claim by stating in its papers that “[t]o vigorously defend its patent, Vericool World had to bring this claim.” But “[t]he rights of a patentee or copyright holder are part of a ‘carefully crafted bargain,’ ” and for whatever reason, it didn’t bring a patent infringement claim. Zobmondo Ent.