Client-Centered Intellectual Property Solutions
In the recent decision of Miller Mendel, Inc. v. City of Anna, Texas, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 17637 (Fed. Cir. July 18, 2024), the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This case provides...
On May 18, 2023, the Supreme Court held claims of two patents owned by Amgen, Inc. to be invalid for failing to enable persons skilled in the art to practice the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. §112. Amgen, Inc., et al. v. Sanofi, et al. ___ U.S. ___, No. 21-757...
On May 2, 2023, in Volvo Penta of the America’s, LLC v. Brunswick Corp., Case No. 2022-1366 et al., Paper 15 (PTAB May 2, 2023), Director Vidal sua sponte vacated a PTAB decision denying IPR institution due to a district court finding of invalidity. ...
On March 13, 2023, in Apple, Inc., et al. v. Vidal, Case No. 2022-1249 (Fed. Cir. March 13, 2023), the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a decision from the Northern District of California dismissing a lawsuit filed by several large technology companies for lack...
On September 28, 2022, the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a decision from the Northern District of California granting a Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss on the basis that claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,432,452 were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Coop. Entm’t, Inc. v....
In 2021, an organization of patent owners and various patent-holding companies sued the USPTO in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent owners sought to force the USPTO Director to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking regarding the standards for discretionary...