• Abstract Analysis in Other Areas of the Law

    One of the struggles of the Subject Matter Eligibility test is understanding the definition of the legal term “abstract idea.” The Supreme Court has used the term “abstract” in many other areas of law – perhaps most pointedly in the area of standing and the requirement of a concrete, non-abstract harm. In the 2016 internet law case […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Facebook’s efficient infringement of social media platforms continues to impact Snap shareholders

    Snap has attempted to remain competitive with new features, such as increasing the allotted time for video capture and introducing new drawing tools this May. But it hasn’t been able to gain a foothold against Facebook, a company which reportedly offered to buy Snap for $3 billion prior to Snap’s IPO… “If we are unable to protect our intellectual property, the value of our brand and other intangible assets may be diminished, and our business may be seriously harmed,” one of the section titles…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017)

    By Michael Borella — Two-Way Media brought an action against Comcast in the District of Delaware, claiming infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,778,187, 5,983,005, 6,434,622, and 7,266,686. The District Court dismissed the case on the pleadings, finding that all of the claims were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Two-Way Media appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. One must first decide whether the claim at hand is directed to a judicially-excluded law…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Conference & CLE Calendar

    November 6, 2017 – Biotechnology/Chemical/Pharmaceutical (BCP) Customer Partnership Meeting (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) – Alexandria, VA November 7, 2017 – “Personal Jurisdiction After Bristol-Myers Squibb: Unresolved Issues, Shifting Plaintiff …

    Continue Reading ...
  • 1st Office Action Estimator (出願後、最初のオフィスアクションはいつ頃?)

    個々の出願について、出願手続きを行った後、いつ頃最初のオフィスアクション(又は特許許可通知)を受け取ることができるのかという事については、出願人にとって、気になるところと思う。米国特許出願の場合、例えば、出願から14ヵ月までに最初のオフィスアクションが発行されないと、特許期間調整(Patent Term Adjustment)において、それがUSPTO側の責任による遅延として扱われるように(35 U.S.C § 154 (b))、出願から14ヵ月とい

    Continue Reading ...
  • 1st Office Action Estimator

    個々の出願について、出願手続きを行った後、いつ頃最初のオフィスアクション(又は特許許可通知)を受け取ることができるのかという事については、出願人にとって、気になるところと思う。米国特許出願の場合、例えば、出願から14ヵ月までに最初のオフィスアクションが発行されないと、特許期間調整(Patent Term Adjustment)において、それがUSPTO側の責任による遅延として扱われるように(35 U.S.C § 154 (b))、出願から14ヵ月とい

    Continue Reading ...