About: admin

Posts by admin:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

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
  • By:

ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. LG ELECTRONICS INC.

Arendi sued LG alleging that various LG products infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,917,843. The local discovery rules required Arendi to specifically identify the accused products and the asserted patent(s) they allegedly infringe with a claim chart relating each accused product to the asserted claims each product allegedly infringes. Although Arendi filed a Disclosure that listed hundreds of LG products as infringing four claims of the ’843 patent, it provided “exemplary” claim charts for only one of those products (LG’s Rebel 4 phone). 

  • Posted on: Sep 7 2022
  • By:

Carter DeLuca announces $20,000 donation to local Community Non-Profits in honor of 20th anniversary of the firm!

Carter, DeLuca & Farrell LLP is excited to announce that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the founding of our firm! As we reflect on the past two decades, we celebrate our accomplishments and express our sincere gratitude to our clients and professional colleagues with whom we have had the privilege of working. We recognize that these valued relationships have made it possible for us to be so successful in what we do. We started with a single New York office in Melville, Long Island. We have since added Arlington,

  • Posted on: Sep 2 2022
  • By:

BEST MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. ELEKTA INC.

Varian Medical Systems, Inc. filed two IPR petitions  challenging claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,393,096 (which is generally directed to a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy of tumors using a pre-determined radiation dose) and, after the Board instituted review in both IPRs, Elekta filed copycat petitions and was joined as a party to Varian’s IPRs.  In one of the two IPRs, the Board determined that Elekta had proven that claim 1 was unpatentable as obvious but had not done so for claim 18.

  • Posted on: Aug 26 2022
  • By: