• Is it Patent Eligible?

    Eligible?: 1. A method for implementing a blackjack game in a physical casino, the method comprising: providing the physical casino with a physical gaming table with a felt layout on top of the gaming table, the felt layout including a plurality of betting circles imprinted into the felt layout; providing one or more physical decks […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Board Improperly Interpreted Incorporation by Reference

    While the Court affirmed several of the Board’s validity findings, it reversed the determination that the ’455 PCT qualifies as prior art. At issue was the extent to which the ‘817 application included the disclosures of Severinsky, so that challenged claims would antedate the ‘455 PCT. Paice argued that Severinsky was incorporated into the ‘817 application and was not prior art. Therefore, certain challenged claims could rely on Severinsky for the ‘817 priority date, which was earlier than the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Patterson Thuente IP Names Christian Girtz as a New Partner

    Patterson Thuente IP has named patent attorney Christian Girtz as a partner in the firm.  He handles patent preparation and prosecution for clients in the fields of computer software, communications, and Internet and electronic commerce.

    The post Patterson Thuente IP Names Christian Girtz as a New Partner appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

    Continue Reading ...
  • PatentlyO Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

    Craig Daniels: Trolled Tyler Harttraft & Roberta Jacobs-Meadway: Where Does Blockchain Fit In Digital Rights Management? Ron Coleman: Vegas Golden Knights Trademark Registration: Still On Ice Scott McKeown: PTAB Explains Expanded Panel Rationales Charles Bieneman: Patent That Survived Alice Is Not Obvious Barry Eagar: Blockchain Patents – Hope or Hype? Get a Job doing Patent […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

    By Michael Borella — This first five or so weeks of 2018 have been busy for Federal Circuit 35 U.S.C. § 101 jurisprudence. At last count, four substantive decisions have come down so far (including this one, but not including Rule 36 judgments without opinion). Out of these, two have found the claims at issue to be patent-eligible, and one has found the claims to be ineligible. This case splits the baby, finding some claims ineligible and others in need of further review. But the impact of today’s decision may be further-reaching than the other three. At the very least,…

    Continue Reading ...
  •                         目次はこちら

    (VALENCE)
    $$ A principle characteristic of bronzes is their range of composition, which results in the transition metal exhibiting a variable formal v…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Welcome new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

    Andrei Iancu has now been sworn-in as the new USPTO director.  He begins today with his mission to ensure that the American IP system remains “the crown jewel that provides both the incentives and the protections necessary to enable that innovation and resulting growth.” For the past nine months, the Agency has been led to […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Kevin Soter on Causation in Reverse Payment Antitrust Claims

    Readers of this blog are likely familiar with the Supreme Court’s 2013 FTC v. Actavis decision, which concluded that certain “reverse payment” pharmaceutical patent litigation settlements could violate the antitrust laws and that “it is normally not necessary to litigate patent validity to answer the antitrust question.” Actavis had plenty of academic input before it was decided and has continued to spark vigorous scholarly debates, such as an article by Edlin, Hemphill, Hovenkamp & Shapiro, a response by Harris, Murphy, Willig & Wright, and a reply from the original group.

    But until I read Kevin Soter’s forthcoming Stanford Law Review Note, Causation in Reverse Payment Antitrust Claims, I wasn’t aware of the developing circuit split over reverse-payment antitrust suits brought by private individuals rather than the government.

    Unlike the government, private individuals must establish “antitrust standing,” including the need to show causation of injury-in-fact, which limits enforcement to groups like drug purchasers, consumer groups, or insurers that might actually be harmed by the settlement. Under the approach to causation adopted by the Fifth and Third Circuits, “plaintiffs must prove precisely how, absent the illegal settlement agreement, generic entry would have happened earlier,” which can require litigation of patent invalidity or noninfringement. Other courts—including the California Supreme Court, three district courts, and perhaps the Second Circuit—use the same inference as in Actavis, “reasoning that a plaintiff who has shown an antitrust violation based on a reverse payment settlement agreement has necessarily shown an agreement to delay generic entry beyond the otherwise expected date of generic entry.”

    Soter sides with the latter approach, arguing that the causation inquiry for private plaintiffs is no different from the inquiry over anticompetitive effects at issue in Actavis, for which litigation of patent validity is unnecessary. And he notes that a burden-shifting approach could address lingering concerns by allowing defendants to rebut the inference of causation.

    The best part of teaching at Stanford is having extraordinarily talented students who can produce works like this, and I thought it was worth highlighting for anyone who has been following the pharmaceutical patent litigation antitrust debates.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Patent Eligibility: Underlying Questions of Fact

    by Dennis Crouch Important statement from the Federal Circuit today on the factual underpinnings of the eligibility analysis: While patent eligibility is ultimately a question of law, the district court erred in concluding there are no underlying factual questions to the § 101 inquiry. Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at […]

    Continue Reading ...