Alexander P. Ott
Subscribe to Alexander P. Ott's PostsAlexander (Alex) P. Ott focuses his practice on litigating complex patent disputes and representing clients in a variety of high technology industries, including the semiconductor, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pharmaceutical and software industries. He is a registered patent attorney with significant experience in patent prosecution matters. Alex has represented clients in federal district courts, in Section 337 investigations before the US International Trade Commission (ITC), in inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings at the US Patent and Trademark Office, and before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Read Alexander (Alex) P. Ott's full bio.
Summary Judgment Foreclosed when There Is More than One Possible Inference from Evidence
By Alexander P. Ott on Nov 19, 2020
Posted In Patents
Reversing a summary judgment ruling that barred a correction of inventorship claim, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found issues of material fact foreclosed summary judgment and warned that where an issue is a “quintessentially fact-laden one” such as equitable issue involving possible equitable estoppel on inventorship, summary judgement is likely not...
Continue Reading
Independently Performed, Publicly Disclosed Prior Work Can Lead to Joint Inventorship
By Alexander P. Ott on Jul 23, 2020
Posted In Patents
Addressing an inventorship decision that added two co-inventors to patents covering cancer treatments, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the co-inventors’ work constituted joint inventorship even though it was performed independently and publicly disclosed prior to conception of the claimed invention. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute v. Ono Pharma. Co., Ltd., Case...
Continue Reading
Prior Art-Based Invalidity Analysis May Be Possible for Indefinite Claim
By Alexander P. Ott on May 27, 2020
Posted In Patents
Addressing a decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) declining to find certain claims unpatentable because they contained means-plus-function elements without any corresponding disclosed structure, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision except as to one challenged claim where the means-plus-function element...
Continue Reading
Trade Secret Claim Premised on Patent Inventorship Assertion Did Not Warrant Removal to Federal Court
By Alexander P. Ott on Apr 15, 2020
Posted In Trade Secrets
Addressing a decision by California district court denying a motion to remand a trade secret case back to the California state court where it was originally filed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the removal to federal court was improper and vacated the district court’s decision. Intellisoft Ltd. v. Acer...
Continue Reading
Knowledge and Control of Importation Can Lead to § 337 Violation
By Alexander P. Ott on Mar 12, 2020
Posted In Patents
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) decision that a respondent qualified as an importer under § 337 despite not being the actual importer of record, based on the respondent’s involvement in the importation. Comcast Corp. et al. v. ITC, Case Nos. 18-1450, -1653, -1667 (Fed....
Continue Reading
A Lot of Hot Air? Obviousness Testimony Must Come from POSITA
By Alexander P. Ott on Feb 20, 2020
Posted In Patents
Addressing a jury verdict of invalidity, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion in allowing trial testimony regarding obviousness from a lay witness, and remanded for a new trial. HVLPO2, LLC v. Oxygen Frog, LLC, Case No. 19-1649 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2020) (Moore, J).
Continue Reading
No En Banc Review of Non-Institution Decision After Remand of Partial Institution
By Alexander P. Ott on Jan 29, 2020
Posted In America Invents Act
Addressing a panel decision that affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding denying institution of an inter partes review (IPR) after an earlier partial institution decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied both a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc over a dissent from Judge Newman. BioDelivery Sciences...
Continue Reading
