//
archives

Supreme Court of the United States

This tag is associated with 10 posts

Microsoft Takes Verbal Beating From Ginsburg And Supreme Court

Microsoft argued its case to the Supreme Court today, asking for a nine-figure judgment against it to be overturned. In the process, of course, the case could alter the requirement that patent challengers prove invalidity by clear and convincing evidence.  Right out of the gate, Microsoft attorney Thomas Hungar (from Gibson Dunn) asserted that the … Continue reading

Practical Implications Of Supreme Court’s Role In Patent Policy

Microsoft has asked the Supreme Court to overturn a long-standing rule that requires patent challengers to demonstrate invalidity of a patent by “clear and convincing” evidence (as opposed to the more common civil standard of “more likely than not”).  I’ve mentioned before that this case could have a significant impact on patent value across the … Continue reading

Law Firms Compound Cost Of Patent Litigation

A recurring issue the past few years in patent litigation is the amount of detail that patent owners are required to provide when they initiate a lawsuit. The truth is, most judges will tolerate a very scant amount of information, essentially amounting to identification of the patent at issue along with a description of the … Continue reading

Power Play: Are Trade Secrets More Powerful Than Patents?

The California Employment Lawyer blog alerts us to an ABA-Landslide article discussing the possibility that trade secrets provide more powerful protection than patents. The lawyer’s answer, like the answer to so many questions, is it depends. *Sigh* The passage quoted by CEL summarizes: In recent years, decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and other developments … Continue reading

Patent Connections: A Patent Does Not Protect Your Products

I’ve taken to becoming quite frustrated lately with the propagation of the falsity that filing patents can protect your products. Either this statement is incredibly misleading, or patent attorneys have a different interpretation of “protection” than the rest of us. (Actually, there is a third possibility that we’ll get to later)  After all, if this … Continue reading

CAFC (Again) Refuses Chance To Give Bilski-test Teeth

The concept of “patentable subject matter” (also known as section ‘101’ patentability) was addressed again by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last week.  As you may recall from my earlier discussion of a Microsoft-related patent case, this legal requirement is really focused on whether the patent claims something that is too … Continue reading

Patent Connections – Lawsuits For The Greater Good: University Research Monetizing Patents Through Litigation

My latest edition of Patent Connections published this week, after a much-needed week off with the family.  This week’s column deals with university research and patent litigation.  The timing is appropriate, given the upcoming Supreme Court argument between Stanford University and Roche over the rights to federally-funded research. 

CAFC Prematurely Ends “Bilski” Hunting Season

Was it over before it started? Anti-patent advocates have been watching court filings closely, looking for situations where the Supreme Court’s recent case on patentability of abstract ideas could be used broadly against a class of so-called “software patents.” The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), through its Chief Judge Rader, may have … Continue reading

An Examination Of Patent Sausage-Making

As I’ve discussed on this blog, and elsewhere, the Interval Licensing case against Google and several other search, advertising and e-commerce companies makes for a fascinating study on many levels.  In particular, the actions of lawyers on both sides of this case speak volumes about how your IP rights are treated during litigation.  Consider, for … Continue reading

What Is A “Software Patent”?

Earlier I mentioned that I would explain why I sometimes put the term software patent in quotes. The reason is, quite simply, that the term is an oversimplification that is both too over-inclusive, and too under-inclusive to substantiate any productive dialog. The term is over-inclusive in that some of its users tend to conflate a … Continue reading