On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) granted certiorari in Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. The question before the Supreme Court is whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), an inventor”™s sale of an invention to a third party qualifies as prior art when the claimed invention was not publicly disclosed before one year of its application filing date.

On June 28, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (“Supreme Court”) granted certiorari to Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. The question before the Supreme Court is whether, under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) of the Copyright Act, a copyright owner can bring an infringement suit after delivering the proper deposit, application, and fee to the U.S. Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”), but before the Register of Copyrights has acted on the application for registration.

On August 15, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a decision in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., holding that when an unconventional feature of the patent claim is determined to be an abstract idea, that unconventional feature cannot make the patent claim eligible under 35 U.S.C §101 (“§ 101”).  

On July 13, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that a prior art reference does not inherently disclose the elements of a claim limitation if the prior art describes the performance of the elements but does not include a complete description of the elements, finding the patents of Endo Pharmaceuticals Solutions Inc. (“Endo”) not invalid for obviousness.

We are excited to announce that our new and refreshed website is live. The updated site includes changes to navigation, with dropdown menus, and a better user experience for both mobile and desktop versions.