Small Change

We end a quiet week with a quick word on a short order from Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas in the case of Tivo v. Verizon Communications. Under the new regime inaugurated by the America Invents Act, patent–owners cannot name unrelated alleged infringers in the same case just because they believe those...

Supreme Court Wraps Up Its Patent Docket

In its final patent–related opinion of the term, the Supreme Court answered a fairly obscure question in Kappos v. Hyatt: what standard should the district court apply in ruling on an appeal from the Patent Office’s denial of a patent application. Under 35 U.S.C. § 145, a disappointed patent applicant can take his or her...

NPEs By The Numbers

We read with interest the report of Article One Partners (HT: IPWatchdog), regarding the results of a survey pertaining to IP litigation issues across various sectors. While noteworthy on other grounds, we at IP Wise found most interesting the (sobering) statistics pertaining to non–practicing entity a/k/a troll litigation: NPE litigation in the high technology industries...

Is Innovation Another Cost of Defense?

People in the patent and tech communities have strong opinions about patent trolls/non–practicing entities, not even agreeing on what to call them. The moniker “patent troll” reflects the fact that these entities only use the patents they own negatively, i.e., to block other people from engaging in the sphere of productivity allegedly covered by the...

No Privilege for Plaintiff’s Patents

We’ve blogged, oh, a time or two, about the Federal Circuit’s opinion in ResQNet v. Lansa and the aftershocks in the district courts. Since ResQNet, at least some courts have allowed defendants (at least in certain circumstances) the ability to get a peek at the man behind the curtain, to examine the negotiations behind license...

What Did YouTube Know, And When Did It Know It

Viacom sued YouTube for copyright infringement of approximately 79,000 video clips posted to the popular DIY video site. In 2010, YouTube argued that it couldn’t be held responsible for infringing conduct by people posting clips to YouTube without the company’s knowledge. The district court agreed, ruling on summary judgment that YouTube was entitled to safe...

Taking Trademark Infringement Personally

Today’s entry is a cautionary note to corporate officers about trademark infringement. The Chicago IP Litigation Blog highlighted a recent decision from a federal court in Chicago concluding that an individual acting as a corporate officer can be held personally liable for trademark infringement he or she was personally involved in or aware of. The...

When The Game Is Not Worth The Candle

We’ve spoken as to the merits of creative case management before—particularly when the cost of the defense appears to be driving the litigation train. In a recent scheduling order set in the case of Brandeis University & GFA Brands, Inc. v. East Side Ovens Inc. et al. (the “et al.” standing in for a number...

Prometheus Rebound

The Supreme Court issued its opinion today in the case of Mayo v. Prometheus, which asked the Court to determine whether a diagnostic process that employed a law of nature could be patented. After an oral argument which left many of the justices uncertain where to draw the line between patentable processes and unpatentable laws...

The (Patented) Ide(a)s of March

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard of the upcoming patent infringement battle looming between Yahoo! and Facebook, on the eve of Facebook’s IPO. It seems everyone has something to say on the topic (seemingly with the ironic exception of Yahoo!’s Facebook page). Irony coming in twos, one of those with something...