new-email-outline

Outcome-Secured Litigation Financing: Offsetting Your Costs

June, 19th, 2018

By Christopher J. Stankus & Michael J. Harris Is a competitor infringing your patent, but you can’t afford the legal fees to pursue your claim? Or would you rather invest capital to grow your business instead of paying [Read More…]

Sec. 101 Motions: Patent Panacea or Plague?

April, 12th, 2018

By Wesley W. Whitmyer, Jr. Motions to Dismiss on grounds that patents fail to claim patent-eligible subject matter, so called 101 or Alice Motions, have proliferated like dandelions in spring.  It’s the defense du jour for alleged infringers lacking prior [Read More…]

Amending Burdens: Federal Circuit Changes Law so IPR Petitioners Must Prove Amended Claims Unpatentable

November, 22nd, 2017

By Robert D. Keeler Inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings are infamous for their high patent invalidation rate. To protect against wholesale patent loss, Congress gave Patent Owners the right to make narrowing amendments to any challenged [Read More…]

CAFC Seemingly Expands Inequitable Conduct to Litigators

November, 14th, 2017

By Christopher J. Stankus Patent prosecution attorneys are well aware of their duty of candor to the PTO. However, in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Merus N.V., No. 2016-1346 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit [Read More…]

District Court Illustrates How Specification Can Help or Hurt Patent Eligibility

September, 11th, 2017

By Stephen Ball At issue was a Motion for Summary Judgment that certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,960,032 (the “‘032 patent”) and RE41,490 (the “‘490 patent”) are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Intellectual [Read More…]

Earnhardt Family Races Through Federal Circuit Over Surname

August, 8th, 2017

By Christopher J. Stankus On July 27, 2017, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration the TTAB’s finding that the mark EARNHARDT COLLECTION is not primarily merely a surname because it was unclear whether [Read More…]

Supreme Court Rules Disparagement Refusals Unconstitutional—Will Scandalous Refusals Be Next?

July, 14th, 2017

By Chelsea A. Russell On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court expanded trademark protection in its much-awaited ruling of Matel v. Tam, 582 US ___ (2017). The Lanham Act has long held that a trademark [Read More…]

The Great Chemical Divide: Federal Circuit Suggests the Insubstantial Differences Test for Evaluating Equivalence in Chemical Patent Cases

July, 14th, 2017

By Mackenzie L. Long In 1950 the Supreme Court outlined the two tests for evaluating the doctrine of equivalents in the case, Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605, [Read More…]

Shaw-shank Relitigation: District Courts Chiseling Away at Estoppel Provisions

June, 27th, 2017

By Robert D. Keeler Congress established inter partes review (“IPR”) as a less expensive, more efficient method of challenging the validity of a patent. Indeed, Congress explained that the IPR is a “complete[] substitute for [Read More…]

© Copyright 2020 Whitmyer IP Group