S. James Boumil, III
S. James Boumil III is an associate in the Litigation Department and a member of the Patent Law and Intellectual Property groups. He is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Subscribe to all posts by S. James Boumil, III
On February 22, Chief Judge Saris in the District of Massachusetts issued an opinion on a motion to dismiss implicating several complex copyright infringement issues. The Chief Judge’s ruling analyzed whether several allegedly infringing works could be considered “substantially similar” to the copyrighted works, as required to support a claim of copyright infringement. The “substantial similarity” analysis produced different results … Continue Reading
This post follows our previous post summarizing Federal Circuit cases upholding software patent claims on Alice Step 1 grounds. Here, Step 2 decisions are explored in more detail, with a focus on additional lessons learned during the Step 2 analysis. Surviving Step 2—which requires that the claims include “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself—often … Continue Reading
It has now been over three years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its transformative patent decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank. During that time, the Federal Circuit has issued only a precious few decisions upholding the validity of software patent claims. Thus, it is critical that patent applicants and practitioners understand the … Continue Reading
Judge Gorton in the District of Massachusetts recently denied an early summary judgment motion filed in a patent infringement suit, holding the motion to be premature on two grounds. First, a scheduled claim construction hearing had yet to occur, rendering a proper infringement analysis impossible. Second, material issues of fact remained regarding an estoppel claim. The decision serves as … 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 … Continue Reading