Contact Us
Contact Us

Contact Us Now


Print Page

U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit


March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc. ”“ Computer software for identifying and protecting against malware §101 patent eligible

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.

March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Advanced Video Tech v. HTC Corp. ”“ Co-inventor did not transfer interests in patent via employment agreement

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.

March 30, 2018 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

W-Fi One LLC v. Broadcom Corp. ”“ Time bar of USPTO IPR petition is appealable

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).


June 6, 2017 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association

On February 21, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued its opinion in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank (“PNC”), holding that, to be eligible for covered business method (“CBM”) review under the America Invents Act (“AIA”), a patent”™s claims must contain some financial activity element.

December 22, 2016 | By S&H
Posted in: S&H IP Blog | U.S. Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit

Amdocs (Israel) Limited v. Openet Telecom, Inc.

On November 1, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) held that four of Amdocs”™ patents, US 7,631,065, US 7,412,510, US 6,947,984, and US 6,836,797, were directed toward patent-eligible subject matter. Unlike previous subject matter eligibility cases, the Federal Circuit evaluated Amdocs with an examination tailored to the specific facts of the case, comparable to traditional common-law.


STAAS & HALSEY LLP

Firm Logo

1201 New York Avenue, N.W.
7th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20005

T. 202.434.1500 | F. 202.434.1501

View on Google Maps

Back to Top

Privacy Notification

This website uses cookies to improve functionality and performance. If you continue browsing the site, you are giving implied consent to the use of cookies and tracking on this website. See our Privacy Policy for details.