Boulder, CO-based shoe manufacturer Crocs, Inc. (NASDAQ:CROX) had a design patent rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The patent struck by the USPTO is U.S. Patent No. D517789.
Following a jury trial, the court denied defendant's renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on the ground that plaintiff’s messaging patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter because the asserted claims were not directed toward an ab
Avid sought fees as a prevailing party under § 285, and therefore the attorney’s fees in this action were properly characterized as an equitable remedy, properly decided by a judge.
In mag Fasteners, Inc. v.
In a patent infringement case governed by the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (“BPCIA”), the Federal Circuit found that it lacked jurisdiction to compel discovery in the district court.
District Court Finds Method of Detecting Claim to Be Directed to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter By Donald Zuhn -- Earlier this month, in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the U.S.
The Wall Street Journal explains ithat the Silicon Valley culture has long regarded copying as a good thing and necessary for rapid growth, first to market, first mover advantage, network effects, world domination, liquidity for early investors an
The magistrate judge recommended granting plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment that their patents were not unenforceable for inequitable conduct or unclean hands because the failure to submit a copy of a disclosed PGR institution decision was
The USPTO issued Examination Guide 01-17 on Monday, June 26, 2017, entitled “Examination Guidance for Section 2(a)’s Disparagement Provision after Matal v.