Latest Articles

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has published in the Federal Register final revisions to its rules of practice and procedure governing Section 337 investigations, the investigations that the ITC conducts under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 based on private party complaints against imported articles that allegedly violate U.S. intellectual property rights.  This completes a process begun in 2015 when the ITC first initiated a proposed rulemaking for changes to its rules.  The rules will go…
For a third time in the past thirty days, a Judge Moore-led panel has found in favor of a patent owner defending its claims from an eligibility challenge under Section 101.  In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Nos. 2016-2315, 2016-2341 (March 8, 2018), a panel majority (Moore, Bryson) upheld a lower court’s post-trial ruling that claims to a method for detecting body temperature using temperature readings from the forehead skin and ambient temperature…
On February 14, 2018, a Federal Circuit panel in Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., No. 2017-1452, overturned a Middle District of Florida decision that held patent claims to systems and methods for importing data into viewable form on a computer to be patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  According to the majority opinion authored by Judge Moore, the lower court erroneously granted dismissal of the case “in the face of factual allegations”…
Earlier today (May 22, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that venue for patent infringement suits against U.S. companies is limited to the company’s state of incorporation or where the company has a “regular and established place of business.”  The Supreme Court’s decision—TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341—dramatically reshapes the patent litigation landscape.  For many years, venue has been deemed proper over a U.S. company wherever an…
In a somewhat surprising move, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to address the question of the proper forum for patent litigation in TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341.  Although the U.S. Code contains a special venue provision for patent infringement actions that the Supreme Court had interpreted to be limited to the defendant’s state of incorporation, the Federal Circuit has long held that nonresident defendants may be sued for…
The Defend Trade Secrets Act was signed into law on May 11, 2016.  It creates the first-ever federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation.  We have prepared an article on the Act.  The article distills the DTSA’s most important aspects – and omissions – into a distinct set of takeaways of practical use to readers.  Please click here to read the article. For more information on the DTSA, or any aspect of trade secret…
President Barack Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law yesterday, May 11, 2016. As we previously reported, the Senate unanimously passed the bill on April 4, and the House overwhelmingly passed it on April 27. The President has long supported the legislation to bring greater harmonization to trade secrets enforcement, following an extended bipartisan effort to create a new federal system of trade secrets that commenced in 2012. The DTSA creates…
The Federal Circuit today denied a challenge to its venue precedent in patent infringement cases, rejecting arguments that a U.S. district court should be precluded from hearing a patent infringement action over a non-resident corporation without an established place of business in the district.  The case, In re TC Heartland, LLC, No. 2016-105, originated from the District of Delaware but would have had the greatest impact on the Eastern District of Texas, where 44%…
On April 27, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Defend Trade Secrets Act, S. 1890, by a vote of 410-2.  The Senate approved an identical bill 87-0 on April 4, 2016.  President Obama is expected to sign the DTSA into law in short order.  Once effective, the DTSA will create a federal, civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation for any act that “occurs on or after the date of the enactment”…
In Sports Dimensions, Inc. v. The Coleman Company, slip op., 2015-1553 (Fed. Cir. April 19, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a design patent incorporating functional elements must be construed to include ornamental aspects of those elements.  It rejected a lower court’s construction of the design patent because the construction eliminated the functional elements.  “By eliminating structural elements from the claim, the district court improperly converted the claim scope…