Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that “laches” — a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay in pursuing an infringement claim — couldn’t preempt a claim for damages sustained within the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations. Now the Court has extended its reasoning to patents, eliminating the laches defense for infringement allegedly committed within the Patent Act’s six-year statute of limitations.
Vocabulary matters in the courts, as one company found out recently. According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the term “volitional conduct” has nothing to do with voluntary actions when it comes to direct copyright infringement. The court explained the meaning in a case where it also denied a copyright holder’s secondary liability claims for infringement.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to announce that four lawyers have been named to the 2018 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Congratulations to the following attorneys: Eric H. Chadwick, Litigation – Patent James H. Patterson, Copyright Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Patent Law Brad D. Pedersen, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law Bradley Thorson, Patent Law
Jay Erstling recently spoke on the evolving world of IP law at Dennemeyer’s Forum on The Future of IP Law & Technology in eight US cities. Here, he share some of his thoughts on the subject, as well as what was learned during the forum Q&A discussions.
Business method patents on software have had a tough time in the courts in recent years. But a recent ruling may now provide some hope for patent holders. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. marks a rare example of the court finding software to be patent-eligible. The ruling provides valuable guidance on just what it takes for these patents to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Does a company that provides software perform a service that supports a service mark? In today’s technology-driven markets, this question is raised with increased frequency. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ recent decision in In re JobDiva, Inc. delivered good news to companies using this business model, although it also cited a caveat.
When the inventors of a new design process admitted that they had mentally performed the patented steps themselves, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals took them at their word. The patent holders in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. ultimately failed the two-step abstract ideas test.