Great stories about patents and other IP
Federal Circuit rules on USPTO decision in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc
Dec13

Federal Circuit rules on USPTO decision in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc

The Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (the Board) invalidation of several claims in three Ameranth patents in Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board’s decision to uphold all other claims in the patents, finding them unpatentable according to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The USPTO’s Director, Michelle Kwok Lee, challenged the Court’s ability to review the Board’s decisions,...

Read More
The Absence of an Estoppel, Doesn’t stop Canadian Patent Applicants
Sep15

The Absence of an Estoppel, Doesn’t stop Canadian Patent Applicants

When it comes to the construction of patent claims, Canada rejects the need for a fil wrapper “estoppel” –  the electronic file records containing all the documents relevant to a particular patent applications – because they are publicly available anyway. With his finding in Pollard Banknote Limited v Scientific Games Products (2016),, Canadian Federal Court Justice Locke has renewed the discussion whether the lack of a file...

Read More
Alice strikes again: Amazon gets Appistry’s Patents Ruled Invalid
Aug22

Alice strikes again: Amazon gets Appistry’s Patents Ruled Invalid

The crackdown in US courts on software and process patents that try to secure intellectual property rights on very common ideas and concepts continues. The Western District Court of Washington recently agreed with Amazon.com’s demand that an IP infringement case brought against the retailer should be dismissed, because the patents underpinning the claim are invalid according. The Court found that the patents asserted by the plaintiff,...

Read More
LifeTech and Worldwide Liability: US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari on Infringement Case
Aug19

LifeTech and Worldwide Liability: US Supreme Court Grants Certiorari on Infringement Case

On June 27, the US Supreme Court declared that it will look at whether shipping a single non-infringing component from the States would make the supplier of that component liable for international damages under US law, should that component be used in an infringing composition outside the US. This announcement presents a crucial case for manufacturers that provide their products produced in the States to worldwide markets. At the...

Read More