reebmmm (939463) writes "In a much anticipated patent law case, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit overturned existing law and came out in favor a new rule for indirect infringement: you can still be liable for infringing even if no single person does all the infringement.
This case consolidated two different cases involving internet patents. In McKesson v. Epic, a lower court found that Epic did not infringe a patent about a patient portal because one of the steps was performed by the patient accessing the portal. In Akamai v. Limelight, the lower court found that Limelight did not infringe because its customers, not the company itself, tagged content.
reebmmm (939463) writes "The Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care act and it's most contentious provision: the individual mandate. In a split decision, Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority said the individual mandate survives as a tax." Link to Original Source top
reebmmm (939463) writes "Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, voluntarily sitting as a district court judge, in the patent infringement dispute between Apple and Motorola has, tentatively, dismissed the case on the eve of trial. In this hilariously short order, Judge Posner states, "I have tentatively decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because neither party can establish a right to relief."
Because it is "with prejudice" the parties cannot refile their case. The parties are likely to appeal the order (when it's finalized)." Link to Original Source top
reebmmm (939463) writes "The Supreme Court just decided the long-awaited case against Bernard Bilski: Federal Circuit Affirmed
Unsurprisingly, the Court found Bilski's claims invalid because they were ineligible subject matter under Section 101 of the patent law. In a decision (with a concurrences by Breyer and Stevens), Justice Kennedy wrote of Bilski's claims: "petitioners' claims are not patentable processes because they are attempts to patent abstract ideas. Indeed, all members of the Court agree that the patent application at issue here falls out-side of 101 because it claims an abstract idea."
The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's "machine or transformation test" as the sole test for patent eligibility. The Court made clear the while the machine or transformation test may be a useful tool, it is not the only test. The Court noted that the patent law does not exclude business methods.
The Court declined to render all software patents invalid.
It is important to emphasize that the Court today is not commenting on the patentability of any particular invention, let alone holding that any of the above-mentioned technologies from the Information Age should or should not receive patent protection. This Age puts the possibility of innovation in the hands of more people and raises new difficulties for the patent law. With ever more people trying to innovate and thus seeking patent protections for their inventions, the patent law faces a great challenge in striking the balance between protecting inventors and not granting monopolies over procedures that others would discover by independent, creative application of general principles. Nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck.
Professor Sohi developed technology that was ultimately patented by WARF using money he received from Intel. Last month, Judge Barbara Crabb found that the funding agreement was ambiguous, but that e-mails revealed that the money was an unrestricted gift and carried with it no obligation to license or assign any inventions to Intel.
Trial was scheduled to begin today. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
reebmmm writes "Judge Barbara Crabb issued an opinion stating that NETGEAR's products that comply with the 802.11 Standard do not infringe three patents controlled by an 802.11 patent pool. The three patents: 6,018,642, 6,469,993, and 4,975,952. This case was a standards based case:
"From the beginning, plaintiffs have taken the position that they may prove infringement by defendant's products by showing that those products practice relevant
standards that read on plaintiffs' patents."
In this case, however, the judge concluded that the "plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that defendant's accused products infringe any of the asserted claims in plaintiffs' patents and that defendant is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffsâ(TM) infringement claims." As such, NETGEAR's 802.11-compliant products do not infringe.
And in quite the benchslap, the judge was quite unimpressed with the three plaintiffs (LG, Fujitsu and Philips):
"Plaintiffs' preparation of the record evokes two images, neither one of which is flattering to plaintiffs. The first is that they conceive of the court as a hunting dog with no higher duty than to run down every fox, sniffing out evidence in the record, wherever it may exist. The second is Poe's Purloined Letter, in which a valuable letter is hidden in plain sight among many other letters."