Source: http://swipreport.com/category/civil-procedure/page/2/
Timestamp: 2017-03-29 09:55:40
Document Index: 615714839

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 2', '§ 101', '§ 1292', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101']

Civil Procedure | The Software Intellectual Property Report - Part 2
Archive | Civil Procedure No Interlocutory Appeal for Adverse Alice Ruling	By Charles Bieneman on May 12, 2016 in Civil Procedure, Patentable Subject Matter Having denied a defendant’s motion to find patents invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Delaware’s Judge Robinson has now denied the defendant’s request for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Improved Search, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-00262 (D. Del. May 6, 2016). Judge Robinson explained that interlocutory appeal should be exceptional, and should […]
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Recognizes Privilege For Patent Agents	By Peter Keros on April 2, 2016 in Attorney-client privilege The Federal Circuit recently held that there is an independent patent agent privilege, explaining that because prosecuting a patent application before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) constitutes the practice of law, communications with non-attorney patent agents are privileged. In re: Queen’s University at Kingston, No. 2015-145, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 4259 (Fed. Cir. […]
Continue Reading More Technical-Seeming Claims Held Patent-Ineligible Under 35 U.S.C. § 101	By Charles Bieneman on September 7, 2015 in Civil Procedure, Litigation, Patentable Subject Matter, Software Patents Patent claims directed to a “payload delivery system” for delivering payloads, i.e., data, “via one or more communication networks” have been held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Novo Transforma Tech., LLC v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P., Civil Action No. 14-616-RGA (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2015). As with many recent Section 101 cases, the court granted […]
Continue Reading No Stay When Inter Partes Review Not Yet Instituted	By Charles Bieneman on August 15, 2015 in America Invents Act, Civil Procedure, Inter Partes Review, Stays Where the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) had not yet ruled on a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR), a U.S. District Court denied a defendant’s motion for a stay pending completion of the IPR. Seymour Levine v. The Boeing Co., No. 14-1991RSL (W.D. Wash. July 29, 2015). The court was swayed by the […]
Continue Reading Stay Granted Based on Inter Partes Review Petition Filed Four Months Before Patent Lawsuit	By Charles Bieneman on July 29, 2015 in Civil Procedure, Stays Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas has granted a defendant’s motion for a stay based on institution of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. MemSmart Semiconductor Corp. v. AAC Technologies Pte. Ltd., No. 2:14-CV-1107-JRG (E.D. Texas July 10, 2015). The defendant was able to present strong facts in support of a stay. Notably, […]
Continue Reading Patent-Eligibility Can Be Deferred Until Claim Construction	By Charles Bieneman on May 7, 2015 in Civil Procedure, Litigation, Patentable Subject Matter, Software Patents Although many courts are often willing to rule on patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the pleadings stage, sometimes courts are more comfortable deferring the issue until claim construction. An interesting recent example is Mobile-Plan-It LLC v. Facebook Inc., no. 3:14-cv-01709 (N.D. Cal. April 20, 2015), where patent claims directed to a “method for […]
Continue Reading A District Court’s Denial of a Motion to Stay Is Not Appealable After a Petition Seeking a CBM Review Proceeding at the PTAB Has Been Filed (but not Granted)	By Charles Bieneman on April 22, 2015 in America Invents Act, Civil Procedure, Covered Business Method Patent Review, Stays The Federal Circuit has dismissed, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a denial of a motion to stay where petitions had been filed, but not granted, seeking covered business method (“CBM”) reviews at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5204 (Fed. […]