OCIPLA OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
OCIPLA OCIPLA
  • Home
  • About
    • About OCIPLA
    • Committees
    • Past Presidents
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • News
  • Membership
  • Contact
Feb 22
OCIPLA submits amicus brief to The United States Supreme Court in TC Heartand

OCIPLA Submits Amicus Brief To The United States Supreme Court In TC Heartland

In patent litigation, the question of whether venue is proper often turns on whether a defendant resides in the forum.  The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that an “action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant... read more →
  • February 22, 2017
  • staff
  • Amicus Briefs, Patent
Oct 05

The Federal Circuit May Not Review An Unappealed Claim Construction

In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. [En Banc Opinion], Appeal Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, 2015-1994, the Federal Circuit vacated the panel decision, reinstated Apple’s $120 million jury verdict, and remanded the willfulness issue for consideration under the Halo standard. At the district court, a jury awarded Apple nearly $120... read more →
  • October 5, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent
Oct 04

Methods Of Circuit Design That Could Be Performed Mentally Were Invalid Under §101

In Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., Appeal No. 2015-1599, the claims reciting a method related to circuit design were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The asserted method claims recite translating a functional description of a logic circuit (e.g., software code) into a hardware component description of the logic... read more →
  • October 4, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent
Oct 04

Defendant Failed To Prove That The Ordinary Meaning Was Inapplicable

In Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Shire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1881, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s conclusion that a clear and unmistakable prosecution disclaimer had not occurred during prosecution of a parent application and also affirmed that the term “three-dimensional” was not indefinite.   MIT sued Shire... read more →
  • October 4, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent
Oct 03

Prosecution And Specification Disclaimer Narrowed Claim Scope

In Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1200, the Federal Circuit affirmed a narrow claim construction based on a “clear and unequivocal” disavowal of claim scope in the specification and prosecution history. Poly-America sued API for infringing its drawstring trash bag patent.  The entry of judgment turned, in... read more →
  • October 3, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent
Oct 02

Fraud-Detection Patent Claimed Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter

In FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1985, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that FairWarning’s patent claimed patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. FairWarning sued Iatric Systems asserting its patent titled “System and Method of Fraud and Misuse Detection.” Specifically, the patent... read more →
  • October 2, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary, Patent
Oct 01

Oral Inhalation of Influenza Drug Ruled Obvious In View Of Nasal Inhalation

In In Re: Constantin Efthymiopoulos, Appeal No. 2016-1003, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision affirming the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims as obvious. Applicant applied for a patent directed to methods of treating influenza by administering the drug zanamivir through oral inhalation. The Examiner... read more →
  • October 1, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary
Oct 01

The PTAB’s Reconsideration Of Its Institution Decision Is Unreviewable

In Medtronic, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Healthcare Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1977, 2015-1986, 2015-1987, the Federal Circuit ruled that a Patent Trial and Appeal Board determination to vacate an institution decision and terminate IPR proceedings is not reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo... read more →
  • October 1, 2016
  • staff
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • 1
  • ...
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16

« Previous Page

Recent Posts

  • Job Announcement: Intellectual Property Junior Associate/Patent Agent (Contract and/or Full-Time)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (1 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (2 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (3 of 8)
  • Federal Circuit Summaries (4 of 8)

Archives

  • April 2023
  • January 2023
  • September 2022
  • May 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • March 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • February 2020
  • September 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • November 2018
  • September 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • October 2016

Categories

  • Amicus Briefs
  • Copyright
  • Education and Training
  • Employment
  • Federal Circuit Summary
  • News
  • Non-Obviousness
  • Patent
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Trade secret
  • Trademark
  • Uncategorized


Serving the Orange County Intellectual Property law community since 1983.

Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association
P.O. Box 7632
Newport Beach, CA 92658

About
Membership
Bylaws
Contact

© 2025 OCIPLA | All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web