Print Page
S&H IP Blog
Please choose article to Read More on: U.S. SUPREME COURT 1 – Google LLC vs. Oracle America, Inc. ”“ U.S. copyright protection for software interfaces U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 1 – Amgen Inc. v Sanofi, Aventisub LLC ”“ CAFC heard argument that may influence COVID-19 drug […]
December 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | USPTO News
USPTO to Adjust Trademark Fees Effective January 2, 2021
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is set to increase certain trademark fees effective January 2, 2021.
December 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuti) in St. Jude Medical, LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC held that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim must be considered in light of the specification.
December 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
IQASR vs. Wendt
In IQASR vs Wendt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a district court”™s decision to invalidated US Patent. No. 9, 132, 432 due to indefiniteness. At issue in the case was the term “magnetic fuzz”.
December 17, 2020 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
In re Google Technology Holdings, LLC
On November 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sustaining the rejection of the Examiner's final rejection of various claims under 35 U.S.C. §103 in an application by Google. In clarifying the difference between the doctrines of "waiver" and "forfeiture," the CAFC held that Google had forfeited the arguments put forth on appeal because those arguments were not presented to the Examiner or PTAB. Therefore, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decision.