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.

This is a follow-up on WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., (respectively, “WesternGeco” and “ION”) from our article in the Winter 2018 newsletter.  On June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In doing so, the Supreme Court held that a patent owner may recover lost foreign profits, under 35 U.S.C. § 284, for infringement under 35 U.S.C § 271(f)(2).

On May 15, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") decided SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, holding advancements in abstract ideas, regardless of how innovative, are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C §101 without plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.