The BRI standard is understood to be broader than the plain and ordinary meaning standard applied in district court litigation.

Petitioner had been served with a complaint asserting infringement of the challenged patents on December 3, 2014, triggering a statutory bar date of December 3, 2015 by which Petitioner had to file its IPR petitions.

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit held a software-based patent to be eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc.

In determining whether a trademark can be registered, the foundational question before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) examiner is whether an applied-for mark is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace.

Under current statute, the public use of an invention or an offer for sale within one year of filing a patent application does not serve as a bar to novelty.

In recent years, patent disputes relating to business method patent disputes have commanded considerable attention at the USPTO and in the nation's courts.

In a unanimous panel decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims directed to cloned cattle, sheep, pigs, and goats are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC § 101.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") denied a petition to institute an inter partes review (IPR) trial filed by the Petitioner, Praxair Distribution, Inc. ("Praxair") and NOxBOX Limited ("NOxBOX") based on estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e) (reproduced below).

No statutory provision unambiguously directs the agency to use one standard or the other.

To avoid forfeiting a patent, OEMs should take these steps when working with suppliers.

On March 4, 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a long-awaited guidance memo for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C § 101 in the wake of two recent Supreme Court decisions: Association for Molecular Pathology, et. al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., et. al.i and Mayo Collaborative Services, et. al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.ii This memorandum can be found here.

The UK was expected to ratify the UPC by the end of 2016.

On May 13, 2016, the Federal Circuit, in Merck & Cie v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., held that an offer for sale that qualifies as a commercial offer under the law governing contracts, is enough to trigger an on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. §102(b), even when an actual sale has not been actually consummated. - See more at: http://www.brinksgilson.com/the-federal-circuit-actual-sale-is-not-required-for-triggering-the-on-sale-bar-under-35-usc-102b#sthash.IV0MFoDh.dpuf

Discovery of the revolutionary gene editing technology called CRISPR touched off a battle between the University of California (UC) and the Broad Institute (Broad) over control of the associated patent rights.

On Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, (Case No. 16-341).

The two-part Alice/Mayo test includes an analysis involving three questions, one of which is: "Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?"

Under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), the United States is transitioning from a "first to invent" system, in which a patent is issued to the first inventor, to a "first inventor to file" system, in which the patent is issued to the first inventor to file a patent application claiming the invention.

On March 16, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will switch from the current "first-toinvent" system to a "first-to-file" system.

On September 27, 2013, Judge Holderman issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in In re Innovatio, setting a reasonable and non- discriminatory (RAND) licensing fee for Innovatio’s portfolio of nineteen patents essential to the 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standard.

Who influenced your decision to become a lawyer? Was it a parent who encouraged you; a television show that motivated you; or a legal icon that inspired you?