Archive for the ‘Patent Litigation’ Category


Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, LTD – joint infringement under 271(b)

In Move, the Court Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that joint infringement may be established through inducement by demonstrating that an accused infringer had knowledge of an patent, performed some limitations of a claim from the patent, and induced others to perform the remaining limitations of the claim.

Read More »

Marine Polymer v. HemCon – Intervening Rights

Arguments made to the PTO during reexamination can amend the scope of claims and trigger absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate.

Read More »

Ultramercial v. Hulu

In Ultramercial, the CAFC held that a method claim for distributing copyrighted products over the Internet was patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 due to the programing complexity required to carry out the claimed elements. This is probably as close as we are going to get as an apology for Bilski and Cybersource.

Read More »

IGT v. Bally Gaming, Inc.

The term “one” is defined by the words and context that surround it and may mean “one and only one” or “at least one.”

Read More »