Technological Improvement in Roof Imaging is Patent-Eligible

Can claims directed to correlating images into a three-dimensional model provide a technological improvement sufficient to be patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101? Yes, says the Court in Eagle View Techs., Inc. v. Xactware Sol… Read More

Single Reference Obviousness Rejection Requires No Motivation

Does an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in which a single reference discloses each element require a motivation to combine with another reference? In Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, the Federal Circuit said no, upholding… Read More

Graphical User Interface not Patent-Eligible

Patent claims directed to a remote user interface displaying a plurality graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were held not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, No. 15-42-LPS (D.… Read More

Analyzing Tweets is Abstract

A method for analyzing text to determine a strength of an opinion is not patent-eligible subject matter under § 101. Isentium, LLC v. Bloomberg Fin. L.P., 17-cv-7601 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 29, 2018). U.S. Patent No. 8,556,056 is d… Read More

Another Unsupported Patent Royalty Rejected

Expert testimony on patent royalties that is unsupported by evidence is excluded. Dominion Assets LLC v. Masimo Corp., Case No. 14-cv-03002 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2018). Plaintiff Dominion alleged infringement by Defendant Masimo of… Read More

Requiring Condition Can Overcome Art Resulting In Condition

A claim that required a specific condition overcame prior art that merely disclosed an embodiment resulting in satisfaction of the condition. In re Facebook, Inc., No. 2017-2524 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 14, 2018) (nonprecedential) (C.J. Pr… Read More

Non-Patented Features and the Entire Market Value Rule

Evidence that a patented feature drives customer demand is insufficient to justify damages under the entire market value rule (EMVR) when non-patented features may drive customer demand. Power Integrations, No. 2017-1875 (Fed. Cir… Read More

Vague Development Agreement Allows Inventorship Challenge

Can vagueness in a development agreement allow standing to question inventorship of subsequently filed patents?  The Federal Circuit held in Gregory C. James v. j2 Cloud Services, LLC, No. 2017-1506 (Fed. Cir. 2018) that an agree… Read More

Invention Disclosure to In-House Counsel Privileged

Is an invention disclosure submitted by an inventor to an in-house attorney for procurement of a patent covered by attorney-client privilege? The Central District of California held in The California Institute of Technology v. Bro… Read More

Supreme Court of Texas Recognizes Patent Agent Privilege

Texas now recognizes an independent patent agent privilege in Texas state courts. In re Andrew Silver, No. 16-0682 (Texas 2018). This now aligns with the Federal Circuit, which recognized patent agent privilege a few years ago, an… Read More

Upcoming Webinar

The February webinar is being presented by Bryan Hart, Associate at Bejin Bieneman, who will discuss recent developments related to design patents. In particular, Mr. Hart will discuss the Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Maatita in August and…Register

Subscribe