You searched for Patent | Page 80 of 164

Protecting Your Technology: IP Considerations in Digital Health

by Ahsan Shaikh and Bernadette M. Broccolo | Mar 5, 2020 | Patents

Digital health companies are producing innovative products at a rapidly accelerating pace and experiencing a boom in investments and demand as the regulatory environment becomes more supportive of digital health services to both improve patient care and stay profitable. Protecting intellectual property (IP) and building a feasible data strategy to support the research and development endeavor are essential steps for companies in their drive toward commercialization and return on their investment.

On this episode of the Of Digital Interest podcast, McDermott partners Bernadette Broccolo (Health) and Ahsan Shaikh (IP) explore key issues for digital health companies, their collaboration partners and investors, and start-ups to consider, including:

What is currently patent eligible in the digital health space?
What patent-eligible trends and opportunities are we seeing?
How do laws governing data sharing among digital health collaborators impact the research and development effort and associated IP rights?
What challenges and opportunities do artificial intelligence, blockchain and machine learning present for digital health innovators?

Listen now.

Federal Circuit Confirms Time Bar Under § 315(b) Is Waivable

by Paul Devinsky | Feb 27, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

Notwithstanding the jurisdictional nature of the time bar under § 315(b), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that a party may waive a time bar argument if it failed to raise the issue with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) during the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding. Acoustic Tech. Inc. v. Itron Networked Solutions, Inc., Case No. 19-1061 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020) (Reyna, J.).

(more…)

Petitioner’s Reply Argument in IPR Is Not an Impermissible New Theory

by Christopher M. Bruno | Feb 27, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

Addressing whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) too narrowly read its rules limiting reply briefs in an inter partes review (IPR) to preclude a petitioner’s argument as a “new theory of unpatentability,” the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Board abused its discretion by not considering petitioner’s arguments. Apple Inc. v. Andrea Electronics Corp., Case Nos. 18-2382, -2383 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2020) (Plager, J.).

(more…)

A Lot of Hot Air? Obviousness Testimony Must Come from POSITA

by Alexander P. Ott | Feb 20, 2020 | 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).

(more…)

2019 IP Law Year in Review: European Issues

by Dr. Philip Uecker, Laura Morelli, Dr. Henrik Holzapfel, Charles de Raignac and Paul Devinsky | Feb 13, 2020 | Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks

Executive Summary

The last year of the 2010s has been prolific in terms of important new pieces of legislation and case law within the European Union, and in France and Germany in particular. Indeed, the European Parliament and the EU Council adopted in April 17, 2019, a controversial directive (Directive 2019/790 on copyright and related rights in the Digital Single Market) imposing on online content-sharing service providers—such as YouTube—a new liability system, based on popularity, time and turnover criteria. This directive was created to encourage these service providers to make greater efforts in fighting copyright counterfeiting on their platforms. In France, the PACTE law, which went into force on May 22, 2019, introduced new material changes—namely the strengthening of the French patent office granting procedure (extension of examination scope) and the introduction of patent opposition proceedings before the French patent office. These two legislations greatly influenced EU and French IP law across the year.

(more…)

Key Takeaways from MWE International Seminar Intellectual Property Session – January 2020

by Amol Parikh | Feb 13, 2020 | Technology

On January 21 and 22, 2020, the 8th annual McDermott International Seminars took place in Osaka and Tokyo. These seminars focused on cross-border M&A, GDPR, intellectual property, global enforcement and other key topics. Lawyers from McDermott’s US and European offices, including Washington, DC; Chicago; New York; Paris; London; Brussels; and Munich, discussed these topics with Japanese companies operating globally. During the International Seminars, the Intellectual Property team discussed insights around emerging technologies and intellectual property.

What follows are key takeaways from the IP session of the seminar. (See highlights from the full Seminar.)

(more…)

IPR Institution Limited By the Petition, But Not Limited as to the Express Teachings of the Prior Art

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 13, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

In an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that although the PTAB erred by instituting review based on a ground not advanced in the petition, the PTAB correctly found the patent at issue was invalid and affirmed the final written decision. Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Google LLC, Case No. 19-1177 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 30, 2020) (Prost, C.J.).

(more…)

PTAB May Not Cancel Indefinite Claims in IPR, No Matter What

by Paul Devinsky | Feb 13, 2020 | America Invents Act, Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit imposed limits on what the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is authorized to do by statute when dealing with challenged claims in an inter partes review (IPR) that it finds to be too indefinite to apply prior art. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. v. Prisua Eng’g Corp., Case Nos. 19-1169, -1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020) (Bryson, J).

(more…)

2019 IP Law Year in Review: Trademarks

by Eleanor B. Atkins, Rebecca Harker Duttry, Sarah Bro and Paul Devinsky | Feb 6, 2020 | Trademarks

Executive Summary

Trademark jurisprudence in 2019 may be best summarized in two words: questions and answers. Decisions handed down at the district court level have teed up key questions that are poised to be answered by the United States Supreme Court in the 2020 term—such as the protectability of certain “.com” trademarks, as well as the standard for obtaining particular damages in trademark infringement disputes. For brand owners and trademark practitioners, 2019 will also go down as a year that provided answers to many important questions. For example, on numerous occasions in 2019, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board answered questions as to whether certain designs or designations have the capability to function as a source-identifying trademark. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) answered questions relating to the cannabis industry and how the 2018 Farm Bill would be applied in the review of US trademark applications listing goods or services for CBD products. And, the Supreme Court answered an important question for trademark licensees regarding their rights when a trademark licensor goes bankrupt. This report provides a summary of 2019’s most important questions and answers when it comes to trademark law, and serves as a useful guide for navigating trademark prosecution and enforcement efforts into the year ahead.

Trademarks

2020 Outlook

As we await further answers to our most pressing trademark questions in 2020, we anticipate that this year will bring unique opportunities to apply traditional tenets of trademark law to modern-day disputes and business considerations. So long as marketing efforts continue to incorporate influencers, short-form and interactive content, artificial intelligence, blockchain technologies, and other initiatives to elevate brand profiles, trademark practitioners and the courts will need to be creative in applying traditional interpretations of relevant trademark laws and policies to trademark protection strategies and infringement disputes. In 2020, the USPTO also will be forced to continue to address the ever-crowded brand space by furthering its crack-down on fraudulent trademark applications, clearing dead weight from the USPTO register, and maintaining its strict registrability and failure-to-function assessments to make room for new and growing brands. Finally, in 2020 and beyond, we expect that trademark considerations will continue to color other legal matters and disputes, including corporate transactions, data ownership and privacy, and bankruptcy and restructuring, thus showing the immense commercial value and power of brands.

Read full report.

No En Banc Review of Non-Institution Decision After Remand of Partial Institution

by Alexander P. Ott | Jan 29, 2020 | 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 International, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., Case Nos. 19-1643, -1644, -1645 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2020) (Newman, J, dissenting).

(more…)

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS