What’s obvious to one person isn’t always obvious to another, and the same is true when it comes to patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit demonstrated this principle in rejecting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) determination that a patent was inherently obvious. In doing so, it shed light on what factors establish when a claimed feature of a patented invention was “inherent” in an earlier invention.
The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the court that hears all patent-related appeals, continues to wield the so-called Alice test to knock down patents for abstract ideas. As part of one such decision, the court explained that abstract ideas aren’t patent-eligible in the absence of an inventive concept that makes a claim “significantly more” than just the abstract idea — and the underlying abstract idea can’t provide that inventive concept.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the October/November issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
When a party challenging a patent’s validity alleges that multiple prior references made the invention obvious, it may need to show that someone would have been motivated to combine those references into the invention. However, in a recent case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that no motivation to combine is required where a secondary reference is used only to explain the primary reference.
Patterson Thuente IP is pleased to present the August/September issue of Ideas on Intellectual Property Law. We encourage you to read through it for ideas on how to best protect your intellectual property.
Succeeding in today’s global economy requires more than business and legal acumen. It also requires the ability to communicate across cultures – to understand the values, practices and beliefs that underscore countries’ business and legal systems. Nowhere is this understanding more important than in the area of international intellectual property protection, where success depends upon acquiring and commercializing rights in countries that may seem very different from our own.
Jim Patterson and Brad Pedersen were named to the 2019 Minnesota Super Lawyers® listing for intellectual property. Sarah Stensland was recognized on the Rising Stars® listing for intellectual property litigation.
Circumstantial evidence seals induced patent infringement liability It may seem apparent to patentees when someone is inducing third parties to infringe their patents, but it’s not always easy to prove in a court of law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent-related appeals, recently provided a welcome reminder that sometimes circumstantial evidence can go a long way. The court also weighed in on the proper calculation of lump-sum reasonable royalty damages.
If a graphical user interface is important to your business’ overall brand, you should take another look at design patents. According to recent statistics from the World Intellectual Property Organization the graphical user interface (GUI) and user experience (UX) space are among the fastest growing areas of design applications filed at the USPTO. Why are design patents so popular for protecting GUI elements of products?
When most people think about design patents, they think of consumer products, such as furniture, footwear, toys, car designs, and packaging. However, today, industries such as medical technology, electronics and software are utilizing design patents to add additional layers of IP protection to their products. In fact, designs in the graphical user interface and user experience space are the fastest growing area of design applications filed at the US Patent & Trademark Office.
Choosing the wrong name can be expensive. Gain essential knowledge on trademarks and the naming process. Introducing The Guide for Pursuing Legally Defensible & High-Value Trademarks – a collaborate effort with the branding experts Olive & Company.