Search for Term

Category Archives: Patent Eligibility

Federal Circuit Clarifies Provisional Rights: No Patent, No Payback

Posted by

Patent owners are granted a limited monopoly over their inventions, and with that monopoly comes a bundle of rights. These rights fall into two broad categories: exclusive rights and provisional rights. Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion that clarifies the requirements for patentees to claim provisional rights: they only attach if the patent actually issues before it expires.
Continue reading…

The Twist? No Access, No Infringement

Posted by

Gregorini v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-00406-SSS-JC, 2024 WL 5264949 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2024)

For a plaintiff to allege copyright infringement, they must prove two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) the defendant wrongfully copied from the plaintiff’s valid copyright. To establish the second element, the plaintiff must show both that the alleged infringer actually copied the copyrighted work and that they copied a sufficiently significant amount of copyrighted material from the plaintiff’s work so that the parties’ works are substantially similar. Because both sub-parts must be proven, failure to establish either actual copying or substantial similarity is fatal to a copyright infringement claim.

Continue reading…

CAFC Raises Doubts on Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents in Steuben Foods

Posted by

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp., 127 F.4th 348 (Fed. Cir. 2025)

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit in Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Shibuya Hoppmann Corp. left the application of the reverse doctrine of equivalents hanging on by a thread. While the CAFC found Steuben’s RDOE arguments compelling, it ultimately held that resolving the RDOE issue was not necessary to determine that the district court’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringement was improper.
Continue reading…

I Say Yes, You Say No: PTAB Articulates Different Standards for Determining Whether a Printed Publication Was Publicly Available

Posted by

Ex parte Grillo-Lopez, Appeal No. 2018-006082 (Jan. 31, 2020)

On April 7, 2020, the PTAB designated its January decision in Ex parte Grillo-Lopez (“the Decision”) as precedential. In the Decision, the Board held that patent examination and IPR proceedings have different standards for establishing a prior art printed publication, with the petitioner in an IPR facing a higher burden of showing that a reference was publicly accessible. Having been designated as precedential, the Decision is now binding authority in all USPTO ex parte proceedings. Continue reading…

Indefinitely Not: Federal Circuit Rules that the PTAB Cannot Cancel Claims for Indefiniteness During an IPR

Posted by

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal Nos. 2019-1169, 2019-1260 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2020)

The Federal Circuit has held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may not cancel claims as indefinite in an IPR proceeding.

In 2016, Prisua Engineering Corp. sued Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and other Samsung entities for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,650,591 (“Video Enabled Digital Devices for Embedding User Data in Interactive Applications”). Samsung then petitioned the PTAB for inter partes review of the ‘591 patent, asserting that claims 1–4, 8, and 11—which are directed to methods and apparatuses for “generating a displayable edited video data stream from an original video data stream”—were unpatentable.

Continue reading…