The Bolt is a collection of short comments and updates about new developments in law and technology written by members of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. See our introductory post for more information.
Got any questions, concerns, or tips? Contact us at !
 |
 |
Topic Archives: Federal Circuit
Are Human Genes Patentable? A Preview of Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (“The Myriad Case”)
On April 15, 2013, the Supreme Court will hear the oral arguments for one of the most highly anticipated patent law cases of last year: Association for Molecular Pathology, Inc, et al. v. USPTO, et al. The one and only question before … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
The Uncertain Future of Divided Patent Infringement
The law of patent infringement is governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271. In particular, § 271(a) describes what constitutes infringement: Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Centocor v. Abbott Labs: Enforcing the Written Description Requirement in the Unpredictable Arts
In the recent Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories (PDF), the Federal Circuit found that Defendant Abbott was not liable for patent infringement, on the basis of written description insufficiency. The Federal Circuit emphasized the patent statute’s requirement that … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International: New Aspects to Divided Infringement
In Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications International (PDF), the Federal Circuit limited its doctrine that for patent infringement, “every element” of a claim needs to be infringed by a single party. Legal Background: Patent claims describe the scope … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Uniloc v. Microsoft: Reducing the Potential to Recover Reasonable Royalty Rate Damages
In the recent Uniloc v. Microsoft (PDF), the Federal Circuit made two significant changes to the standards by which a patentee can recover damages from an infringer. First, the court abolished the “25% Rule of Thumb” which had previously been … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Tokai v. Easton: Deference to the PTO and Hindsight Bias in Obviousness Analysis
The recent Tokai v. Easton opinion (PDF) raises a timely standard of review issue that the Supreme Court will soon consider in Microsoft v. i4i, and highlights the danger of hindsight bias in an obviousness analysis. The timely issue here regards … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
iLOR v. Google: A Two-Part Test for Identifying Vexatious or Unjustified Litigation
Summary Collectively, Brooks Furniture and iLOR v. Google (PDF) establish the standards a defendant must meet for an award of attorney fees from vexatious and unjustified litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Brooks Furniture Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dutailier International, Inc., … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Winter 2010 News Briefs
This month, our team members have been consumed with outlines, papers, and finals, and now the holidays are upon us. Although we won’t be able to write full posts on all of the recent developments in technology law, we wanted … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
Finjan v. Secure Computing: Direct Infringement of Apparatus Claims by Software That Requires User Unlocking or Activation
In the recent Finjan v. Secure Computing decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed that software that is sold in locked or inactivated form can directly infringe apparatus claims even before the customer unlocks or activates the software in separate subsequent steps. … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |
First Invented in a Foreign Country and Later “Invented” Again “in this Country:” Solvay v. Honeywell on 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(2)
In the recent Solvay v. Honeywell (PDF) decision, the Federal Circuit dealt with the issue of who qualifies as a prior inventor for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). In particular, this case concerns an invention that was invented … Continue reading
|
| Tweet |