1. Zero Sum Game For Beverage Companies

    Posted on 24.07.18 Shin Hee Lee, on Articles, Patent Related Court Rulings, Recent News & Articles

    On June 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit decided against the soft drink giant The Coca-Cola Company in their long-standing battle with Royal Crown Cola Company and Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc.  These parties had opposed Coca-Cola’s registration of the “Zero” trademark, for various Coca-Cola products. See, cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2375.Opinion.6-20-2018.pdf

    Read Full
  2. Let Us Now Praise Unfamous Inventors, Part II:  The “Almost-10 Millionth” Patentee

    Posted on 11.07.18 Jon Schuchardt, on Articles, Patent Trends & Activity, Recent News & Articles

    It seems like only yesterday that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued U.S. Pat. No. 9,000,000 for a “windshield washer conditioner” that collects and conditions rainwater or dew from a windshield for use as washer fluid.  And now we’ve surpassed 10,000,000!  If patents were Wonka Bars, the millionth ones would surely include a Golden Ticket.

    Read Full
  3. Michael Dilworth Presents Talk to Yale’s Tsai CITY

    Posted on 19.06.18 Thomas Pia, on Recent News & Articles

    Michael Dilworth, Managing Partner at Dilworth IP, presented a talk on Intellectual Property basics for the Tsai Center for Innovative Thinking at Yale (CITY) on Wednesday June 13th.  Tsai CITY is a creative hub of Yale University that unites students, faculty and alumni across disciplines in order to cultivate innovation. The mission of Michael’s talk was to introduce aspiring entrepreneurs to the various nuances involved in protecting their technology. “I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation that we were able to have,” Michael said of the event, “and am grateful for the opportunity to be able to assist the next generation of innovators in their mission to change the world.”

    Read Full
  4. From A[pple] to Z[eroclick]: The Federal Circuit Overrules District Court in Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple, Inc.

    Posted on 11.06.18 William Reid, on Patent Related Court Rulings, Patent Trends & Activity, Recent News & Articles

    In Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 2017-1267 (Fed. Cir. June 1, 2018), the Federal Circuit overruled the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California for improperly interpreting claims regarding the application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6.  The case related to an appeal from an action where Zeroclick had sued Apple for infringement of claims 2 and 52 of U.S. Patent No. 7,818,691 (‘691 Patent) and claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,549,443 (‘443 Patent).  The district court had found the claims invalid as being indefinite.[1]  The court had construed the claims as reciting means-plus-function elements but did not find correspondingly sufficient structure in the specification.[2]

    Read Full
  5. Will Alice Become the New Markman?

    Posted on 10.05.18 Michael Hinrichsen, on Articles, Patent Related Court Rulings, Recent News & Articles

    Buried amidst the flurry of recent Federal Circuit subject matter eligibility decisions is a question that could significantly change how Section 101 is applied in patent litigation.  Specifically, the issue is whether performing Step 2 of the Mayo/Alice test can require a factual inquiry.  If upheld, this interpretation of Alice could make patent litigation much more complicated and expensive.  In fact, Section 101 inquiries could become convoluted mini-trials in their own right – similar to how Markman hearings are performed today.

    Read Full
  6. Matthew Siegal of Dilworth IP Published in The Intellectual Property Strategist

    Posted on 04.04.18 Thomas Pia, on Announcements, Recent News & Articles

    Matthew Siegal, a patent attorney with Dilworth IP’s affiliate firm, Dilworth & Barrese, and Of Counsel to Dilworth IP, recently had an article published in The Intellectual Property Strategist entitled, “Even the Value of the Smallest Salable Unit Must Bes Apportioned.” In the article, Mr. Siegal discusses the Federal Circuit ruling in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat.

    Read Full
  7. Protecting Pharmaceuticals at the Intersection of Patent and Regulatory Law

    Posted on 14.03.18 John Wizeman, on Articles, Biotech/Pharma, Recent News & Articles

    Over three decades ago, the United States Congress passed the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act[1]. This piece of legislation, known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, tackled the difficult task of protecting pharmaceutical innovator intellectual property while ultimately providing increased competition and decreased cost to consumers through accessible generic drugs. This legislative task was accomplished with two pieces of intersecting laws:  (i) the patent provisions under 35 USC which provide for up to five additional years of patent term extension and (ii) the drug exclusivity provisions under 21 USC 355 which provide certain regulatory and marketing exclusivity periods upon drug approval.  The intersection of these patent and regulatory/marketing exclusivity periods provide innovator drug developers with a net exclusivity period. Given the immense monetary and time investment for developing new drugs, maximizing this net exclusivity should be a major focus of patent practitioners in the pharmaceutical field. By maximizing this net exclusivity, innovator drug developers can recoup their investment, as well as provide a stable foundation and incentive for continued drug discovery. To understand how to maximize this window, those involved need to understand the important role this intersection of patent and regulatory law holds.

    Read Full
  8. Court Begins Year with Consistent 101 Decisions, But Then Adds Confusion

    Posted on 28.02.18 Michael Hinrichsen, on Patent Related Court Rulings, Patent Trends & Activity, Recent News & Articles

    Since the start of the year, the CAFC has handed down four cases in rapid succession relating to patent subject matter eligibility – the precedential Finjan vs Blue Coat, Core Wireless vs LG electronics, and Berkheimer vs HP Inc. decisions and the non-precedential Move Inc. vs Real Estate Alliance decision.  In each, the validity of patents relating to software inventions was challenged, in part on the grounds that the inventions covered abstract ideas (an ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101).  In the first three cases released (Finjan, Core Wireless, and Move Inc.), the CAFC displayed refreshing consistency in their evaluation of the ‘abstractness’ of patents, offering a glimmer of hope that the court may finally be offering a clear path forward, in particular with regards to step one of the Alice/Mayo test.  Unfortunately, that hope was dashed in Berkheimer, in which the CAFC reverted to a different procedure for evaluating the abstractness of patents.  This inconsistency in the application of the Alice/Mayo test sows confusion in the patent field, and continues to make the drafting of ‘101 – resistant’ patents more difficult.

    Read Full
  9. U.S. Tops Leaderboard on Chamber of Commerce 2018 IP Index – Slips to #13 in Patent Protection

    Posted on 20.02.18 David Puleo, on Articles, Patent Trends & Activity, Recent News & Articles

    The United States Chamber of Commerce (USCC) released the 6th Edition of the International IP Index on its Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) website last week.  The Index highlights the importance of establishing a strong intellectual property infrastructure to catalyze economic growth, development, and innovation.

    Read Full
  10. Updates from the USPTO on Subject Matter Eligibility

    Posted on 15.01.18 Shin Hee Lee, on News and Events, Patent Resources, Recent News & Articles

    On January 4th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office updated their webpage on subject matter eligibility with two new supplementary documents providing further guidance under 35 U.S.C. §101. The two new documents are useful summaries and references for practitioners and others having an interest in the area. The two documents, which are briefly described below are:

    Read Full