Office Location

Delhi:

E-5, 2nd Floor, Defence Colony
New Delhi - 110024
Tel : 011-24336744

----------------------------------------

Mumbai:

Office No. 1410, 14th Floor, Maker Chamber V, Nariman Point, Mumbai
Tel : +91 22-22873499

----------------------------------------

Gurgaon:

Level 18, One Horizon Center, Golf Course Road, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43, Gurgaon 122002, India
Tel : +91 124 668 8146 / +91 124 668 8147

----------------------------------------

Mumbai (Entertainment and Media Practice)

Office No. 213, 2nd Floor, A-wing, Crystal Plaza, Andheri Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Tel : 022-62360762

----------------------------------------

Mumbai (Corporate and Transactional Practice)

909/A, Capital Building, Bandra Kurla Complex, East Mumbai- 400098

----------------------------------------

Bangalore:

21/2, 1st Main Road,
Opp Indian overseas Bank,
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru - 560009

----------------------------------------

Kanpur:

77A, Cantt., Kanpur - 208004

Intellectual Property Rights-News Letter Issue No: 2014-03-009

March, 2014 Issue

  1. Supreme Court Preview - Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health
    Mgmt. Sys., Inc.

    Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in two cases involving the Attorney Fees provision at 35 U.S.C. § 285.  That section provides that a district court may award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party "in exceptional cases."  The Octane Fitness case, which we previewed last week, will address what the standard is for determining when a particular case is "exceptional."  Specifically, the Court will be reviewing the standard articulated by the Federal Circuit, which provided that a case is only exceptional when "both (1) the litigation is brought in subjective bad faith, and (2) the litigation is objectively baseless," absent misconduct in litigation or in securing the patent.  See Brooks Furniture Mfg. v. Dutailier, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  The second case, Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., will address the level of deference that the lower court's determination is entitled to on appeal.  The question presented in that case is: whether a district court's exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based on its judgment that a suit is objectively baseless, is entitled to deference.  More

  1. Will the Supreme Court Weigh in on Claim Construction Appeals?
    The Federal Circuit has affirmed once again—this time in a sharply divided en banc decision—that it will subject a district court’s claim construction to de novo review on appeal. The case is Lighting Ballast Control v. Philips, and the appeal was the latest challenge to the standard of review set by the Federal Circuit over 15 years ago in More   More

  2. Par Pharma Loses Bid To Keep Appetite Drug Patent                                  
    Maryland federal judge on Friday shut down Par Pharmaceutical Inc.’s bid to keep for itself its formula for a drug that combats anorexia and extreme weight loss in patients with AIDS, finding that the company’s invention was obvious in light of previous drug developments.U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake found that Par’s patent, which covered a specific formulation of the drug Megace ES that is effective in patients who haven’t eaten — compared to an earlier formulation that was effective when taken with food.

  3. Zemplar® : AbbVie Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al.                                                                
    I
    nfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,597,815 ("Prevention of Hyperphosphatemia in Kidney Disorder Patients," issued January 28, 1997) 6,136,799 ("Cosolvent Formulations," issued October 24, 2000), and 6,361,758 (same title, issued March 26, 2002), following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Aurobindo's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of AbbVie's Zemplar® (paricalcitol, used to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients wiIth kidney failure).   More
  4. Aripiprazole: Ostuka Vs Torrent                                                                                                     
    Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,017,615 ("Low Hygroscopic Aripiprazole Drug Substance and Process for the Preparation Thereof," issued September 13, 2011) and 8,580,796 (same title, issued November 12, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Torrent's filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Otsuka's Abilify® (aripiprazole, used to treat bipolar disorder and schizophrenia).     More
  5. Fed. Circ. Revives Supply Chain Patent Suit Against SAP                                                                                               
    The Federal Circuit on Monday revived part of Elcommerce.com Inc.'s suit against SAP AG over a supply chain management patent, ruling that the lower court should have required SAP to present clear and convincing evidence that the patent was invalid as indefinite.  More
  6. Avodart: GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.                                               
    U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (O'Malley, Wallach, Taranto*) affirmed the district court's judgment that U.S. Patent No. 5,565,467, which related to the drug dutasteride marketed by GSK as Avodart® and Jalyn™ for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia, was not invalid for inadequate written description. The Federal Circuit stated: This appeal presents a single issue: whether, under what is now 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the written description of the '467 patent adequately supports the claims to "solvates" of dutasteride. . . . [We] reject Defendants' challenge. Under either the district court's claim construction or Defendants' claim construction, the claim term "solvate" refers to a molecular complex defined by structure and by the process of creating it, not by what the molecule does. Under the district court's construction, the structure is any complex of dutasteride and solvent, not necessarily a crystalline complex, resulting from any of three processes: reaction with a solvent or precipitation or crystallization from a solution. Under Defendants' construction, the structure is a complex of dutasteride and a solvent in which the arrangement is crystalline, resulting from crystallization out of a solution. In either event, the written description, which presents materially the same interpretive choice, describes the same class by identifying a particular structure obtained by particular processes. No matter which construction is adopted, the term "solvate" involves no performance property (the claimed compound need not perform an identified function or produce an identified result) and hence raises no issue of insufficient structural, creation-process, or other descriptions to support such a property. In this situation, we affirm the district court's finding that "solvate" is adequately described, without needing to choose between the offered constructions of "solvate."      More
  7. High Court Cuts Off Challenge To Stoli Vodka Trademark                                       
    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down a case lodged over the trademark for Stolichnaya vodka, leaving in place a lower court's decision that a Russian state-owned company lacked standing to challenge use of the mark in the U.S.The justices denied certiorari to Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport, a government company that under Russian law has some authority over the popular vodka’s trademark, on its appeal of a Second Circuit ruling in August that said the entity couldn't represent the Russian Federation
  8. Amicus Briefs Urging Reversal Filed in Ariosa Inc v. Sequenom, Inc.                                             
    The San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association (SDIPLA) is one of two groups that have filed an amicus curiae brief urging reversal of the District Court's summary judgment decision in Ariosa Inc v. Sequenom, Inc.  (The brief from the other amicus, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, BIO, will be the subject of a future post.)  The SDIPLA's position in its brief is not surprising (particularly in view of the violence with which the District Court treated established principles of patent law); what is surprising is that only two amici have shared their views with the Federal Circuit.
  9. White House Seeks to Promote Transparency Concerning Patent Ownership                                                                                                                                                                                           Last week, the Obama Administration announced "major progress on a series of initiatives designed to combat patent trolls and further strengthen our patent system and foster innovation" (see "The White House Releases Update on 'Protecting American Inventors and Innovators'").  In addition to a number of executive actions discussed in our earlier report, the White House also announced delivery on its commitment of "Promoting Transparency" concerning patent ownership.  In particular, a White House Fact Sheet states that:   More
  10. Judge vacates precedex patent invalidation                                                                             
    A federal judge has reversed a ruling invalidating a patent asserted in Hospira’s case challenging a bid by Sandoz Pharmaceuticals for approval for a generic version of Precedex. Recently, both parties reached a settlement, which permits Sandoz to launch its generic version of the sedative next December. The complaint was filed in 2009 at the US District Court for the District of New Jersey, and accused the company of infringing Finland-based Orion jointly owned patent, (6716867) when Sandoz applied for a Abbreviated New Drug Application at the Food and Drug Administration. The patent covers a method of sedating a patient while in the intensive care unit. Ruling in 2012, District Judge Mary Cooper stated that the patent in the lawsuit is invalid because the purported invention would be obvious to an expert. Consequently, Hospira filed a appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which remanded the case back to the lower court. Judge Cooper wrote in her opinion, the court, will not intervene with the settlement agreement reached by the parties, despite the deal being agreed while the complaint was still pending at the Federal Circuit.
  11. Sanofi sues Glenmark over generic filing on cardiac drug
    Sanofi has sued  Glenmark  over its generic drug filing on cardiac drug Multaq and CNBC-TV18 reports that this suit is an attempt to block entry of cheaper copy-cat versions in the US market.Glenmark had submitted its application to seek US Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) approval for its generic version of the cardiac drug, which is indicated to reduce hospitalisation risk in cardiac patients. Multaq has annual US sales of USD 320mn.Ireland drug maker Actavis (Watson) has also been sued by Sanofi for its generic application along with Glenmark.Sanofi’s base patent on this drug expires in June 2016. Glenmark and Actavis have been sued for later patents. Since the base patent is not part of the suit, it opens doors for generic entry from Glenmark and Actavis post June 2016.   More
  12. Ministry of Sound and Spotify settle copyright infringement dispute                                                                  
    The arguable king of the nightclub industry Ministry of Sound last week reached a settlement with streaming service Spotify in relation to its claim for alleged copyright infringement over playlists based on Ministry of Sound compilations.Ministry of Sound has established itself as one of the leading dance music brands with a hugely popular range of compilation albums, sold under its distinctive name and logo. A number of these playlists were being created and shared by users of Spotify, replicating exactly the content and order of various compilations.Although there was no question that the individual songs had been properly licensed in the first place, a dispute arose over the use of such tracks in these compilation playlists available to download from Spotify. Following an exchange of letters through which no resolution could be reached, in September 2013 Ministry of Sound brought copyright infringement proceedings against Spotify. Ministry of Sound claimed that the playlists were protected as works of copyright because of the selection and arrangement involved in putting together the compilations, and it is believed they brought their claim under section 3(a) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (which provides copyright protection for databases). Databases are generally accepted to include any collection of independent copyright works which are individually accessible and systematically or methodically arranged, and had the case gone to trial it would have been interesting to see if playlists were deemed to fall within this definition of a database.   More
  13. Oral Arguments in the Supreme Court Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. Case
    Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases dealing with the attorney fee-shifting provision of 35 U.S.C. § 285.  In the first case, Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 12-1184), the issue on appeal was what constitutes an "exceptional case" such that attorney fees can be awarded to the prevailing party.  The Federal Circuit had developed a two-part test, which included both an objective component ("objectively baseless") and a subjective component ("subjective bad faith").  Except for a few questions from the Justices that would suggest some deference to the Federal Circuit, no one appeared to be advocating for maintaining this test.  Instead, the Justices seemed to struggle with what the appropriate standard should be -- as Justice Kennedy put it "this is a search for adjectives."  The choices for when a case could be considered exceptional seemed to range from "frivolousness," to "objectively baseless," to "gross injustice," to "objectively reasonable," to "just let the District Court decide."  There was no clear indication from the questioning where the Court as a whole was leaning on the issue.   More

15.0    India’s IPR Policies Jeopardize its U.S. Trade Benefits
India’s Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma has been vocal in calling for the U.S. Government to renew its Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, which since 1976 has provided preferential duty-free access to imports from developing countries.It is not hard to understand why India is so interested in seeing Congress pass GSP renewal legislation. Prior to the expiration of GSP program’s authorization in July, 2013, India was the top beneficiary of these unilateral tariff breaks of the 108 eligible countries. In 2012, India exported $4.5 billion of goods duty-free to the United States under the GSP, including automotive parts, steel tubing, and plastic resins.  Still, the removal of GSP tariff preferences does not close off the U.S. market to Indian exports, since the U.S. simple average tariff is bound at low rate of 3.5% under the WTO.Retroactive renewal of benefits has been the norm during the GSP’s periodic lapses in authorization over the years, so it is anticipated that India will soon regain these tariff preferences. The long-term outlook for India’s GSP status, however, is clouded by Indian economic policies which run counter to the congressional-mandated criteria for country beneficiaries.    In particular, India’s inadequate protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) threatens its continued participation in the GSP program.   More

16.0    Design Patent Infringement: How to decide if you should sue                                                                          
While design patents have been around as long as utility patents, they have long been neglected as a source of potential value. But that is changing. In a shifting tide that began five years ago, courts have begun favoring the plaintiff in design patent lawsuits by simplifying the standard for proving infringement on the ornamental features of a product.The impact of the court’s shift in the infringement analysis was evident in December 2013, when a jury in San Jose, California, awarded $290 million to Apple Inc. The jurors heavily tilted toward the iPhone maker in its claims for damages against Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., which had earlier been found to infringe on iPhone design features, such as using fingers to pinch and zoom on the screen.  More

17.0    IPCom's $2.2 billion lawsuit against Apple thrown out by German court: no infringement found                                                                                                                                                        Two different chambers (panels of judges) of the Mannheim Regional Court just announced a total of three rulings on standard-essential patent (SEP) infringement cases brought by IPCom, a patent licensing firm based in the Munich area that acquired the wireless patent portfolio of Bosch years after the latter had exited the car phone market and is now monetizing it. Today's decisions are, without a doubt, a setback for IPCom's enforcement efforts:Two lawsuits against Apple, including one involving a €1.57 billion ($2.2 billion) "partial" damages claim, and one against HTC (a company IPCom has been suing for about six years) were dismissed because the court concluded that Apple and HTC didn't infringe a certain IPCom patent family by implementing the 3G/UMTS standard. It's a given that IPCom will appeal, but Apple, HTC, Nokia (or soon Microsoft, which is in the process of buying Nokia's wireless devices business), Ericsson, Vodafone and others will likely continue to challenge the validity of the related patents in different fora. This will go on for some more time, unless someone settles, which Deutsche Telekom did last year but others appear to be less interested in.    More

18.0    Fairchild Semi faces $315 million patent infringement charge                                                                
Fairchild Semiconductor of San Jose, Calif., must pay at least $105 million in damages -- possibly three times that amount -- having been found guilty of infringing two patents on power supply ICs held by Power Integrations Inc., also based in San Jose, in a North California district court.    More

19.0    Anika Therapeutics announces dismissal of Monovisc U.S. patent infringement lawsuit
Anika Therapeutics, a leader in products for tissue protection, healing and repair, based on hyaluronic acid technology, today announced that Genzyme (plaintiff) and Anika (defendant) filed a joint motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to lift a stay and dismiss a patent infringement lawsuit concerning Monovisc. Monovisc, a single-injection treatment for osteoarthritis pain of the knee, received FDA PMA approval in February 2014. The court granted the parties' motion and issued an order dismissing the litigation with prejudice on March 10, 2014. This final and unappealable order resolves the parties' dispute and is another important milestone toward commercialisation of the product in the U.S.Monovisc is marketed in the U.S. by DePuy Synthes, Mitek. Under the license agreement with Mitek, Anika will receive a milestone payment of $17.5 million upon an irrevocable resolution of the Genzyme litigation allowing Mitek and Anika to make, use, and sell Monovisc without infringing the Genzyme IP. The agreement also calls for potential additional payments contingent on achieving certain performance and sales threshold milestones, in addition to product transfer and royalty fees.  

20.0    Eli Lilly files patent suit to protect blood-thinner Effient                                                                      
Eli Lilly and Co. has filed a 101-page patent-infringement lawsuit against 35 generic drug companies to block them from selling knockoffs of a Lilly-marketed blood-thinner called Effient.The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, says Effient is protected from generic competition by two patents issued last year that cover the use of aspirin with Effient. Those so-called method-of-use patents don’t expire until 2022.Plaintiffs in the case have all recently filed applications with the Food and Drug Administration to market generic versions of Effient. Plaintiffs include Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories of India, Mylan Laboratories of West Virginia, Teva Pharmaceuticals of Israel and Par Pharmaceutical Cos. of New Jersey.Effient also is protected by a compound patent that doesn’t expire until 2017. Lilly is citing that patent in an earlier infringement lawsuit against Mylan, said Lilly spokesman Mark Taylor.

21.0    Medac Files Lawsuit Against Antares Pharma, Inc., LEO Pharma A/S and LEO Pharma Inc. for Patent Infringement                                      
Medac Pharma, Inc., a privately held pharmaceutical company focused on the development of new molecules and improving the effectiveness of existing medicines, announce the issuance, via its parent company, medac GmbH, of U.S. patent 8,664,231 (the ‘231 patent) from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The patent, entitled “Concentrated Methotrexate Solutions,” is directed to a method for the treatment of inflammatory autoimmune diseases by subcutaneously administering methotrexate (MTX) at a concentration of more than 30 mg/ml.Medac Pharma and medac GmbH also announce the filing of a lawsuit in the United States District Court in New Jersey against Antares Pharma, Inc. (NASDAQ: ATRS), LEO Pharm A/S and LEO Pharma Inc. for infringement of the ’231 patent by their making, selling and offering for sale of Otrexup™ (methotrexate) injection products for treating forms of rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular idiopathic arthritis and psoriasis.   More

22.0    VM Institute of Research Receives Patent for Method of Treating Triple Negative Breast Cancer                                                                                                                                                  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently issued U.S. Patent No. 8,642,270, which is entitled "Prognostic biomarkers to predict overall survival and metastatic disease in patients with triple negative breast cancer."  The '270 patent, which is assigned to the VM Institute of Research (Montreal, Canada), contains claims to a method of treating breast cancer in a subject having triple negative breast cancer.  More

23.0   Weak IP Protection Threatens Asia-Pac Biotech Boom                                                      
The Asia-Pacific (APAC) region is experiencing a significant boom in the volume of private equity and venture capital  investments in biotechnology. According to research and consulting firm GlobalData, healthcare private equity investment in APAC increased by 125.8% between 2011 and 2013,  whereas deal activities in Europe and North America decreased by 30.5% and 2.5% between 2012 and 2013, respectively.Within the past five years,  APAC  has seen pharma deals including Sanofi’s takeover of India-based Shantha Biotechnics, GlaxoSmithKline’s purchase of a stake in South Korea-based Dong-A Socio Holdings, and Novartis’ acquisition of a stake in China-based Zhejiang Tianyuan Bio-Pharmaceutical. “It is therefore not surprising that PE and VC firms have also caught on to this trend, increasing their focus on the region in the hope that future returns will justify their investments and opportunity costs, ” says GlobalData analyst Adefemi Adenuga.    More

24.0    Genetic Technologies wins further patent protection in U.S.                            
Genetic Technologies has reported that as U.S. court denied a motion brought by Agilent Technologies to dismiss the patent infringement law suit brought against it by GTG.This significant result follows the separate success reported in February, when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office  ruled that all aspects of the GTG patent remained fully valid.With the removal of what some potential licensees have apparently used as a reason to delay settlement discussions, commercial negotiations can now resume in earnest.GTG is a molecular diagnostics company commercialising genetic testing, cancer diagnosis and non-coding DNA.Genetic's US subsidiary Phenogen’s lead product, BREVAGen™, is a first in class, clinically validated risk assessment test for non-familial breast cancer.

25.0    Apple wants to milk some serious cash from Samsung in new patent suit                                 
Apple may be asking for as much as $40 per Samsung device found to be infringing on Apple’s patents that are in play in the second U.S. lawsuit between the two companies that’s set to start later this month. That works out to an average of $8 for each of the five Apple patens that are used against Samsung in this trial, ”which relate to (but don’t even fully monopolize) the phone number tapping feature, unified search, data synchronization, slide-to-unlock, and autocomplete.” On the other hand, both parties had to cut the number of patent claims for the upcoming trial, with each side selecting its strongest ones for the trial.Apparently a damages expert will argue for Apple that in hypothetical negotiations between the two, Samsung would have agreed to pay a $40 royalty per phone or tablet sold.The number is somewhat similar to what Apple had proposed at a meeting with Samsung in 2010. However, Apple then asked a $30 royalty per smartphone and $40 per tablet unit, for its entire portfolio of patents, not just five patents. FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller explains that Apple and Nokia settled in 2011 for “the highest per-unit royalty estimate I heard about,” which was in the $10 range for Nokia’s entire standard essential patents (SEP) and non-SEPs, according to an analyst. Similarly, Microsoft is charging Android device makers $15 to $20 per unit for its whole patent portfolio.    More

26.0    Lawsuit filed against DRL in US                                                                                                         
Pennsylvania-based Cephalon has filed a lawsuit against Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) in the United States claiming that the Indian pharma manufacturer's plan to make its own version of the leukemia drug, Treanda, infringes a Cephalon patent.The drug is indicated to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia and non Hodgkin’s lymphoma. According to a few reports, Treanda had sales over $1 billion in the last few years and with subsequent price erosion, it dropped to $682 million last year.Cephalon is the sole owner by assignment of all rights, title of 524 patent will expire on March 26, 2029, and another 190 patent will expire on October 26, 2030. Cephalon researched, developed, applied for and obtained FDA approval to manufacture, sell and market bendamustine hydrochloride products known as Treanda. Cephalon has been distributing and marketing Treanda since 2008.    More

27.0    Dronedarone: Sanofi Vs Sun Pharma                                                                                           
The complaints in these cases are substantially identical.  Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,323,493 ("Solid Pharmaceutical Composition Containing Benzofuran Derivatives," issued January 29, 2008), 8,318,800 ("Solid Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Benzofuran Derivatives," issued November 27, 2012), 8,410,167 ("Use of Dronedarone for the Preparation of a Medicament for Use in the Prevention of Cardiovascular Hospitalization or of Mortality," issued April 2, 2013), and 8,602,215 ("Methods for Reducing the Risk of an Adverse Dronedarone/Beta-Blockers Interaction in a Patient Suffering from Atrial Fibrillation," issued December 10, 2013) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of defendants' filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Sanofi's Multaq® (dronedarone, used to reduce the risk of hospitalization for atrial fibrillation in patients in sinus rhythm with a history of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation).   More

28.0     Janssen Targets Lupin over Generic Prezista                                     
Janssen, a company which produces and markets mental health prescription pharmaceutical products claimed violation of their patent covering the drug Prezista used in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection. The lawsuit attempts to block the release of generic Prezista tablets in the US. The patent at issue is: US8518987 entitled ‘Pseudopolymorphic forms of a HIV protease inhibitor’, duly issued by United States Patent & Trademark Office on Aug 27, 2013. The patent is set to expire[i]  by May 16, 2022 and is currently assigned[ii]  to Janssen (source: MaxVal’s Assignment Database).The complaint alleges that Lupin infringed claims of the ‘987 patent by filing Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking approval to sell generic versions of Janssen’s highly successful Prezista® (darunavir) 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg, 400 mg, 600 mg, and 800 mg products prior to the expiration of the '987 patent, the complaint said. It added further that if approved and marketed, the generic would infringe the ‘987 patent.Janssen is the current holder[iii]  of approved New Drug Application (NDA) No. 21-976 for Prezista® (source: Patent Marker). On or about November 4, 2013, plaintiff received a letter from Lupinstating the submission of ANDA No. 202-073 seeking approval for Lupin's generic tablets, asserting that the claims of the '987 patent are invalid and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture of the generic tablets.   More

29.0    How to Protect Your Patent from Post Grant Proceedings                                                                  
The American Invents Act (AIA) created three new ways to challenge the validity of claims in already issued patents. While the AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011, the new post grant proceedings did not become effective until one year after the signing, on September 16, 2012. These three new post grant proceedings are post-grant review, inter partes review and covered business method review, which is a variety of post-grant review that is limited to business methods relating to the financial industry. Because post-grant review was specifically limited in applicability to patents that were examined under the new first to file law, only patents that have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013, are capable of being reviewed in a post-grant review proceeding. Therefore, so far the USPTO has only seen inter partes review and covered business method cases.On August, 14, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office promulgated final rules applicable to these new proceedings, and at that time the USPTO said that they anticipated  that 420 petitions for inter partes review would be filed in fiscal year 2013.  The USPTO also said they anticipated that in fiscal year 2014 there would be 450 petitions for inter partes review filed. See 77 FR 157 (August 14, 2012) 48713. The Patent Office severely under estimated the popularity of post grant proceedings, particularly inter partes review. Indeed, the PTAB is on pace to reach more than 1,100 administrative trials in FY 2014.      More

30.0    Amazon, HP, Others Sued Over Cloud Computing Patent
Cloud-computing software company Kaavo Inc. sued Amazon.com Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM Corp. and Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday, telling a Delaware federal court that their offerings infringe a Kaavo patent.   More

31.0    Myriad Appeals Adverse Preliminary Injunction Decision                                                                                                                                            
On March 13, Myriad Genetics filed a Notice of (interlocutory) Appeal with the Federal Circuit.  Myriad is seeking to have the Court review and reverse the District Court's denial of the company's preliminary jnjunction motion against Ambry Genetics in its on-going (and now consolidated) lawsuit on several claims from Myriad's BRCA gene testing patents.  It is unlikely that the District Court will stay discovery and other pretrial aspects of the pending lawsuits, and Ambry can continue to provide genetic diagnostic tests including the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation tests while the appeal is pending (as can the other defendants: Quest Labs, Labcorp, Counsyl, GeneDx and Invitae).   More

32.0    Misnomers, Myths, Misunderstandings and Misconceptions about Software Patents                                                                                                                            
Much of this negativism is based on the poor job the US patent examiners have done in weeding out those many patent applications where the so-called invention is just one of the almost infinite, but obvious, ways one can automate a manual or semi-automatic process or procedure. But there are also true inventions that use a computer as part, or all, of the implementation of the invention. There is no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. So it is of utmost importance that we examine the many falsehoods related to software patents.In this new article I intend to provide facts about software and the software industry to debunk these misnomers, myths, misconceptions, and just pure misunderstandings about “software patents.    More

33.0    Texas Instruments Seeks Patent on Smart Batteries                                                                                         
Texas Instruments Corporation is always among the world leaders in the manufacture of semiconductor technologies, including digital signal processors, analog semiconductors and cellular chipsets. Recently, the corporation has been pursuing a major exit from the wireless mobile market, announcing its intentions to sell a wireless and analog factory in Nice, France. TI has been receiving a lot of praise for its recent microtechnology developments, including an award-winning digital micromirror device (DMD) for near-infrared (NIR) light process. Texas Instruments is another company moving into the “Internet of Things” sector, evidenced by its recent partnership with an Indian IT services firm to develop “IoT” systems for automobile, medical and industrial corporations.In today’s Companies We Follow column, we return for a quick look at Texas Instruments, who we’ve profiled in the past. This corporation always has a healthy number of innovations traveling through the halls of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on any given week. Like always, we’ve done our part to identify the most intriguing innovations coming out of the research and development activities of this manufacturer for our readers’ enjoyment.   More