Patent Attorney, Lawyer Law Firm. Handling Patent Prosecution & Litigation Cases

Patent Infringement Protection Against Bad Faith Claims

Gone are the days of being up against the wall dealing with an unreasonable NPE (non-practicing entity) making unsupported claims of patent infringement.  A bill has been introduced in the state of Michigan that could level the playing field for those accused of patent infringement.  The bill, labeled the "Bad Faith Patent Infringement Claims Act” (Michigan HB 5701), aims to prevent Michigan businesses from being held hostage to unreasonable ransom demands by NPEs, for fear of incurring high litigation defense expenses.  The reality is that patent litigation is expensive - even when you have to defend against infringement claims wholly lacking in merit.  Due to the high cost of patent litigation, some companies have been forced to settle and/or pay licensing fees, even where it was likely that they did not infringe or the patent was invalid.  This new bill contemporaneously follows a national trend of backlash against baseless infringement claims and aims to remedy this unfortunate reality.  The bill, introduced by Rep. Mike Carlton in July 2014, provides a new state law claim against bad faith patent infringement accusations.  In this Michigan proposal, bad faith may be determined by weighing several enumerated factors, but basically boils down to a sending a bad demand letter.  

Patent Troll Loses Claim Over Ownership of the Internet.

Michael Doyle and his company Eolas Technologies, which claimed patent ownership in interactive elements on the web, had its claims struck down by a Texas federal jury.

Patent Infringement Dispute: Java FX Developer Oracle is Less Than Enthused with Google’s Android Software

Oracle Corporation (Oracle) filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Oracle’s complaint seeks monetary damages for willful infringement. Along with an injunction to immediately halt Google from building and distributing the Android Smartphone.

Wiki describes Oracle Corporation as a multinational computer technology corporation that specializes in developing and marketing enterprise software products — particularly database management systems.

The Android is Google’s premier Internet and social media Smartphone. Google’s use of open source code, on top of (and based off of) Oracle’s different Java codes, for use in running and writing applications for the Android operating system on its Google Android Smartphone, allegedly infringes on patented Java technologies.

Oracle’s complaint alleges that Google’s use of Java code source and applications opens Google up to liability for partial-infringement of seven different Oracle owned patents.

The complaint also alleges that Google knows, or should have known, of these different infringements because Google hired former Sun Java engineers to work in developing the Android operating system.

If you have a patent issue, or wish to register a patent, you may contact one of our patent attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Patent Lawyer Update: Federal Circuit Examines Intent to Deceive Factor for Falsely Marked Goods in Pequignot

35 U.S.C. § 292 provides a powerful tool for enforcing patent rights against infringers who falsely mark a good as patented or patent pending when it is not actually patented or pending. § 292 provides that any person may sue for the penalty against infringers falsely marking a good as patented, where such infringers “shall be fined not more than $500 for every such offense.”

Along with the false marking element, § 292 also requires that the marking of an unpatented good is done with intent to deceive the public. Closely connected with the second § 292 element, liability for patent infringement requires that the infringer had notice of the infringement and ignored such notice.

An easy way for a valid patent owner to satisfy the notice requirement is to mark each patented good with the appropriate issued patent numbers. However, valid patent owners must take care in marking the goods so as not to open themselves up to § 292 patent infringement liability by mismarking a patented good or, conversely, by marking an unpatented and non-pending good as patented.

If you have a patent issue, or wish to register a patent, you may contact one of our patent attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Supreme Court affirms Bilski

Today the US Supreme Court affirmed the determination in Bilski that the patent at issue was invalid, but rejected the Federal Circuit’s holding that the “machine-or-transformation” test was the sole test for determining patentability of a process under 35 U.S.C. 101.  The Supreme Court held that use of this test as a being determinative for patentability (as opposed to being useful and/or giving a clue as to whether something meets the statutory criteria for patentability) improperly reads additional requirements into patentability statutes and violates statute interpretation principles.  Fueled by hi-tech inventions where subject matter is no longer always grounded in traditional industrial tangible materials, the Supreme Court envisioned that patentable processes in the Information Age may fail the “machine or transformation” test yet still be patentable subject matter.  The Supreme Court did not want to fix the Section 101 on a test that may not apply for emerging technologies and which would not serve the statutory provisions of Section 101.  The Supreme Court also rejected a blanket rule banning patentability for business methods as a category of unpatentable subject matter.  Rather, in order to be patentable as a process under Section 101, the invention must meet the statutory criteria for patentability under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, 112, as well as not be abstract.  In rejecting exclusive use of the “machine or transformation” test, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that the in the future the Federal Circuit may develop other limiting criteria that is not inconsistent with the text of Section 101.

If you have a patent issue, or wish to register a patent, you may contact one of our patent attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Patent Litigation – an Investment Opportunity

Investors seeking new investment choices are turning to IP.  VC’s and others having made a business out of investing in start-up companies relying upon intellectual property to support new emerging technologies and business plans, report that IP is still hot as a lucrative investment choice.  Technologies such as green energy or industries likely to be receiving bail-out funds are examples of IP areas viewed as possible hot investment options.  In addition, given that many traditional investments are less desirable in the current economy, investors not previously having turned to patent assets, are opening their eyes to new possibilities, including funding patent litigation.  Patent litigation investment opportunities may include funding an individual patent litigation for a return based upon recovered damages, or establishing a fund to support a handful of cases, and in that sense creating a more diversified portfolio to spread investment risk.  Teamed with patent litigation counsel performing due diligence on patents and infringement cases, some investors are carefully selecting patent litigations in which to invest.

If you have a patent issue, or wish to register a patent, you may contact one of our patent attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).

Patent Litigation: Congress Steps the USPTO Further Into Patent Litigation Strategy Considerations

The Patent Reform Act of 2009 (Senate Bill, House Bill), recently unveiled by Congress, includes new provisions that could be used as patent litigation tools.  Patent infringement lawsuits are brought before United States federal courts, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) does not adjudicate patent infringement.  The USPTO serves as the gatekeeper for deciding whether to issue patents and provides out of court means for determining some validity issues, including inventorship issues via patent interferences, post patent grant prior art validity issues via patent reexamination and post patent grant claim scope issues via reissue.  The 2009 Patent Reform Act includes a post-grant review proposal that allows a petitioner to challenge validity of a newly issued patent in a cancellation proceeding.

Litigating Patents Post In Re Bilski

The Federal Circuit opinion, In re Bilski, provides new territory for attacking process claims in patent litigation.

Since the Federal Circuit proclaimed in State State Bank that business methods are not per se unpatentable, patentability under 35 U.S.C. §101 has been a hot topic.  Financial sector business method applications, such as the application at issue in In re Bilski, as well as applications concerning Internet business methods, computer software, electric signals, and other new technologies have pressed the Section 101 boundaries at the Unites States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Federal Circuit.

Patent Infringement Attorneys: Patent Infringement Defenses and Counterclaims

When faced with allegations of patent infringement, an accused infringer may raise various defenses recognized by the Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 282.  First, an accused infringer may raise non-infringement as a defense – arguing that the accused product does not meet the language of the patent claim(s) at issue.  Patent invalidity is another defense recognized by the Patent Laws - that the patent does not meet the statutory criteria for patentability set out in 35 U.S.C. §101 et seq.  Patent unenforceability may be a further defense in a patent suit – that the patent is not enforceable due to equitable reasons, such as inequitable conduct during prosecution of the patent.  Defenses in patent cases are fact specific, depending upon the particular patent-in-suit, accused device, pre-suit actions of the patent holder and pre-suit interactions between the parties.  Other defenses or counterclaims sometimes raised in patent infringement litigation may include patent misuse, unclean hands, estoppel, laches, Walker Process antitrust claim, or procedural defenses based upon the pleadings.

If you have a patent issue, or wish to register a patent, you may contact one of our patent attorneys for a free evaluation or call 866.936.7447 (International Toll Free).