The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated a patent interference proceeding between the University of California (UC) and the Broad Institute (Broad), a joint venture of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The PTAB held that the claims of UC’s patent application did not overlap with the claims of Broad’s patents and patent application sufficiently to support an interference proceeding.
Once considered parasites, free riders, or “opportunistic pathogens,” in recent years the roughly 100 trillion symbiotic bacteria that inhabit the various tissues of the human body have been increasingly recognized for their importance in maintaining human health.
In a non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit found that appellant PPG had Article III standing to file an appeal from two inter partes reexaminations. However, the Court found that appellee Valspar’s subsequent “Covenant Not to Sue” had mooted the appeal.
It is well known among patent attorneys that design patents are an under-utilized form of protection in the fashion and beauty industry. See, Nicole R. Townes and Robert Roby, Design Patents – The Often Forgotten, But Useful Protection for Accessories and a Designer’s Timeless and Staple Pieces. Design patents should always be considered for timeless and iconic pieces or for pieces that form the building blocks of a designer’s collection.
The PTAB denied institution of an IPR based on patent owner’s challenge to the prior art status of a PCT publication that was asserted by the petitioner as pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) prior art in Forty Seven, Inc. v. Stichting Sanquin Bloedvoorziening, IPR2016-01529, Paper 13 (P.TA.B., Feb. 9, 2017).
On remand from the Federal Circuit the PTAB granted authorization for a patent owner to file a supplement to its Motion to Amend in Veeam Software Corporation v. Veritas Technologies LLC, IPR2014-00090, Paper 42 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2017).
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently held in Ex parte Itagaki and Nishiara (PTAB 2016) that claims reciting a magnetic resonance imaging apparatus are directed to ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The PTAB recently granted a request for rehearing and modified the final written decision in WesternGeco LLC v. PGS Geophysical AS, IPR2015-00313, Paper 43 (P.T.A.B., Feb. 3, 2017). This is an extremely rare event.
In 2011, Apple sued Samsung alleging among other things that various portions of Samsung smartphone products infringed claims of certain design patents owned by Apple (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.). In 2012, the jury found that Samsung infringed on several of Apple’s patents and awarded Apple 1.1 billion in damages.
On January 18, 2017, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding whether the Lanham Act’s provision refusing federal trademark registration to disparaging marks is invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
