Print Page
On January 10, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) upheld the patentability of multiple patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (”§ 101”) in Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., but reversing on both infringement counts of two patents and one of the two patents’ damage amounts for failure to apportion.
On January 11, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its opinion in Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corp., holding that a co-inventor of a patent does not transfer ownership interests in the patent under a California employment agreement that includes a “will assign” provision, a trust assignment provision, and a quitclaim assignment provision.
On January 12, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) granted certiorari in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corporation, to determine “[w]hether the court of appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).”
Intellectual Property News
On January 8, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its decision in Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., holding that time-bar determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) (“§ 315(b)”) are appealable and overruling Achates’s holding that a § 315(b) time-bar determination is final and non-appealable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d).