Christopher Adams

Latest Articles

On April 22, 2019, the US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the existing options available for Patent Owners to amend their patents during or after an America Invents Act (“AIA”) challenge proceeding. This notice did not amend or alter existing USPTO practices, but instead summarized and clarified three existing options available for Patent Owners to amend patents challenged under the AIA. The notice is a reminder that,…
In its recent ruling in IBG LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, the Federal Circuit vacated determinations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on patents relating to a graphical user interface (“GUI“), holding that the patents were “not … technological inventions” and were therefore ineligible for Covered Business Method Patent Review (“CBM review”). The petitioners challenged the validity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,766,304, 6,772,132, 7,676,411, and 7,813,996 (the “Asserted Patents”) via multiple CBM…
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) inter partes review (“IPR”) decision in Palo Alto Networks, Inc. v. Finjan, Inc., No. 2017-2059, holding that the PTAB did not err in concluding that a person of ordinary skill would not have combined certain prior art identified by Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (“PAN”) in a way that would teach a claim limitation common to the challenged claims.   The Federal Circuit’s opinion underscores…
In Click-to-Call Technologies, LP v. Oracle Corporation, No.2015-1242 (en banc), the Federal Circuit has overturned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s longstanding interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §315(b)’s time bar for inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions, finding that the service of any civil complaint for patent infringement— even if later dismissed—starts the clock on the statute’s one-year window for filing an IPR.…
The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision in Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, No. 2017-2330 that has important ramifications for litigants seeking attorneys’ fees under Section 285 of the Patent Act. Section 285 authorizes a court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in “exceptional cases.”  In Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014), the Supreme Court defined an “exceptional case”…
Following a rejection by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under section 102(f) for a rehabilitative dog harness, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the rejection because the applicant “did not himself solely invent the subject matter sought to be patented.”  In re VerHoef, No. 2017-1976 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2018). Jeff VerHoef built a prototype harness to remediate walking difficulties that his dog developed post-surgery.  VerHoef recognized that the harness would work…
In its May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court shocked the patent world by restricting the range of permissible venues in patent infringement cases for  domestic corporations.  (See our prior posts, here and here).  The Federal Circuit has now found – in its seemingly obvious and “common sense” conclusion in In re Micron Technology, Inc., Case 2017-138 (Fed. Cir. November 15,…
Further to our colleagues’ prior blogs on this matter (here, here, and here), on March 27, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC  to decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (“patent venue statute”) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions or whether the patent venue statute is supplemented by provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (Venue Clarification…