Posts by admin:
TREEHOUSE AVATAR LLC v. VALVE CORPORATION
Treehouse owns U.S. Patent 8,180,858, which discloses a method of collecting data from an information network in response to user choices of a plurality of users navigating character-enabled network sites on the network. Treehouse sued Valve for infringement of the ’858 Patent with infringement based on the operation of the accused video games. The parties adopted the interpretation of the character enabled (CE) limitation that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reached in a previous inter partes review, and as requested by the parties,
- Posted on: Nov 30 2022
Carter DeLuca Partner George Likourezos Featured In 3DHEALS!
Check out the Carter, DeLuca and Farrell LLP partner George Likourezos’ article for 3DHEALS LLC titled “Importance of Patent Search for Regenerative Medicine Inventions”. The article discusses four reasons why it’s important to perform a patent search.
Click here to read the full article.
- Posted on: Nov 16 2022
UNILOC USA, INC. v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC
Uniloc sued Motorola for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,161,134 which district court dismissed because Uniloc had granted a license and the existence of the license deprived Uniloc of standing. In a related case, Uniloc sued Blackboard Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patents Nos. 6,324,578 and 7,069,293 but the district court dismissed applying the Motorola case as a matter of collateral estoppel. Uniloc argues that the District Court erred in dismissing these two actions, but the CAFC holds that another Uniloc case, (Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.),
- Posted on: Nov 4 2022
ABC CORPORATION I v. PARTNERSHIP AND UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATIONS
Plaintiffs own four design patents on hoverboards. Plaintiffs brought suit against appellants (who sell Gyroor-branded hoverboards) claiming that products sold by appellants infringed plaintiffs’ patents. The district court entered a TRO, followed by a preliminary injunction. On appeal, the issue is whether the preliminary injunction must be set aside because the district court erred in determining the likelihood of success on the merits. The CAFC conclude that the district court erred in four independent respects. First, the district court applied, at least in part, the wrong legal standard.
- Posted on: Oct 28 2022
IBM v. ZILLOW GROUP, INC.
IBM sued Zillow for infringement of seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,158,789 (related to coordinated geospatial, list-based and filter-based selection) and U.S. Patent No. 7,187,389 (related to methods of displaying layered data on a spatially oriented display (like a map), based on nonspatial display attributes) – – both graphical display technologies. Zillow filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the claims of four of IBM’s asserted patents were patent ineligible under § 101.
- Posted on: Oct 17 2022
WEISNER v. GOOGLE LLC
Mr. Weisner sued Google LLC for infringement, asserting four patents. Google moved to dismiss, arguing 1) that the asserted patent claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 2) that Weisner had failed to meet the minimum threshold for plausibly pleading his claim of patent infringement. The district court granted dismissal on both grounds and provided Weisner an opportunity to file an amended complaint. Weisner filed a Second Amended Complaint, adding allegations of infringement and allegations related to patent eligibility. Google again moved to dismiss on the same two grounds,
- Posted on: Oct 13 2022
Carter DeLuca Partner George Likourezos Featured in AFN!
Carter DeLuca is proud to announce that partner George Likourezos was featured in AFN, Born from the leading venture capital firm AgFunder. In the article, titled, “Provisional patent applications: the top 3 reasons why agtech startups should consider filing”, George demonstrates the importance of agtech startups filing provisional patents as early as possible, as every patent system is about who files first!
Click here to read the full article!
- Posted on: Oct 11 2022
POLARIS INNOVATIONS LIMITED v. BRENT
Polaris filed a complaint accusing NVIDIA of infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,505 and 7,405,993, and NVIDIA responded by filing IPR petitions challenging certain claims in those patents. The Board issued its final written decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable. Polaris appealed both decisions, but when Polaris and NVIDIA settled, NVIDIA withdrew from the appeals, the PTO intervened to defend the Board’s decisions, and the CAFC vacated the Board’s decisions and remanded. On remand,
- Posted on: Sep 15 2022
SAWSTOP HOLDING LLC v. VIDAL
Sawstop appeals the District Court’s denial of its challenge to the PTO’s interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)(iii) and the denial of Sawstop’s requests for adjustment to the term of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,522,476 and 9,927,796 (both directed to power saws with a safety feature that instantly stops the saw blade upon contact with flesh) for the time spent on appeal. The CAFC finds no ambiguity in the language of the statute and agrees with the conclusions reached by the District Court that 1) statutory construction of the (C) delay provision imposes two requirements: that an adverse determination of patentability be reversed,
- Posted on: Sep 14 2022
HYATT v. PTO
Hyatt filed U.S. Patent Application No. 08/435,938, which claims priority to applications filed as early as 1983, during the GATT Bubble (i.e., it was a transitional application filed but not yet granted before the Uruguay Round Agreements Act took effect). The PTO stayed examination pending litigation. When instructed to select a number of claims from the ’938 application for examination as part of the PTO’s efforts to manage Hyatt’s approximately 400 pending patent applications, Hyatt (under protest) selected eight claims out of the approximately 200 in that application.
- Posted on: Sep 8 2022