In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Federal Circuit’s VE Holding opinion, which had permitted patent defendants to be sued in any forum in which they were subject to personal jurisdiction. Now, patent cases can be brought in only one of two places: (1) the defendant’s state of incorporation; or (2) a district where infringing activity has occurred, and the defendant has a regular and established place of business. Continue Reading
In the time since Alice changed the landscape of patent eligibility for certain types of inventions, the Federal Circuit has begun pumping out opinions interpreting this landmark Supreme Court case. The expanding body of law has enabled lower courts to find their rhythm when utilizing the Alice test to determine subject matter eligibility. In one recent Massachusetts case, the court tackled this issue in the context of a Rule 12(c) motion seeking to invalidate several medical device-related patents. Continue Reading
A Massachusetts federal court recently found multiple early uses of a sought-after trademark insufficient to confer priority of rights. The dispute concerned two technology companies, Nexsan and EMC, each seeking to use the UNITY mark in connection with their computer data storage technologies. The Court held that EMC’s pre-sale uses did not establish “use in commerce” and thus did not confer trademark priority over Nexsan’s earlier filings. Continue Reading
Under some circumstances, party error can excuse late-filed amendments to infringement and invalidity contentions, according to a recent decision by Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV. Approximately five years ago, plaintiff DataTern, Inc. (“DataTern”) filed a patent infringement suit against defendant MicroStrategy, Inc. (“MicroStrategy”) over a patent claiming a “method for interfacing an object oriented software application with a relational database.” Continue Reading
The presumption that claim terms should be interpreted using their plain and ordinary meaning, absent express intent to the contrary, has long been a staple in claim construction. Parties often submit proposed constructions that ask the court to give certain terms their ordinary and customary meaning—the meaning that the terms would have to those skilled in the art at the time of invention. In a recent case from the District of Massachusetts that involves patents relating to tuberculosis testing methods and kits, the defendants tried to bar the plaintiff from submitting such plain and ordinary construction proposals. However, the court instead prescribed a solution in favor of the plaintiff. Continue Reading
Later this month, the Boston Bar Association and the Boston Patent Law Association will jointly host a panel discussion on the recent rise of life science litigation at the U.S. Patent Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). The panel, to be moderated by Proskauer’s Andrej Barbic, promises to, “explore the rise in life science litigation at the PTAB in the past few years, unique aspects of these new proceedings for life science patents, and strategies for dealing with multi-front litigation.”
The panel is scheduled to take place on Wednesday, April 26, 2017, from 12:00 pm – 1:30 pm, at 16 Beacon Street, Boston, MA. More information about the panel and the panelists can be found here.
The Supreme Court recently held in Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., that the designs on certain cheerleader uniforms may be protected copyrights. The 6-2 decision clarified the test to be applied when determining whether a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article would be eligible for copyright protection. Continue Reading