Call Today 888-401-3314

Intellectual property Archives

Matal v. Tam: The Supreme Court rules that "disparaging" marks can be trademarked

The Supreme Court has ruled that a trademark law that prohibits registration of a trademark that "disparages" others violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals: Complicated Issues Persist in Interpreting the "On-Sale Bar"

On May 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit published its decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, No. 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA, (May. 1, 2017) concerning infringement of four patents:  U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,724 ("'724 patent"); 7,947,725 ("'725 patent"); 7,960,424 ("'424 patent") and 8,598,219 ("'219 patent").  Teva defended that the patents were invalid under the "on-sale bar" provision of 35 USC §102.  The District Court held that Teva infringed all of the patents and that the patents were not invalid. Teva appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that all four patents were invalid and thus not infringed.

Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States: A Mathematical Equation Does Not Necessarily Doom Claims To Abstraction

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017, the Federal Circuit published its decision in Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, No. 1:14-cv-00513-TCW, (Mar. 8, 2017) concerning infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159.  Thales Visionix appealed from the US Court of Federal Claims judgment holding that the claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.  The Federal Circuit reversed the Claims Court's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

Life Technologies v. Promega: The Supreme Court Decision and What it Means to You

On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court published its decision in Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. 580 U.S. __ (2017), concerning infringement of US Patent RE 37,984.  The question before the Court was whether supplying a single component of a multicomponent invention overseas constitutes an infringing act under 35 U. S. C. §271(f)(1).

IP Law News|Top Orange County Intellectual Property Patent Law Firm

Teenagers and young adults are getting up in the mornings and leaving their houses to walk and ride around their communities with their friends. They are returning home at dinner time, tired and sunburned. It seems like we have been transported back to the 1950's in a "Back to the Future" culture shock that is sweeping the nation. It is all due to the influence of a new mobile app: Pokémon GOTM. Nintendo and The Pokémon Company have teamed up with Niantic, Inc. on an "augmented reality" mobile app, allowing diehard Pokémon fans to finally become Pokémon masters. The result is a nationwide sensation, sending users in search of Pokémon, Pokémon items and Pokémon gyms lurking in their communities. What makes the mobile app special is its use of "augmented reality," where Pokémon will appear as if they've been spotted in the real world. Your mobile device presents a map... 

Call 888-401-3314 Or Use Our Contact Form

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

Review Us