Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 13 Jan 2020
Ever wonder how so many devices can operate together on a unified network like 4G or Wi-Fi? Ever stop to think about why you can send a selfie from…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 15 Jun 2017
On Monday, June 12, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to decide whether the AIA patent review system will be eliminated on constitutional grounds. If…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 24 May 2017
A party deciding whether to file a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") of a patent under the America Invents Act ("AIA") faces a major…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 18 Jun 2015
The Indiana legislature recently passed legislation that attempts to discourage parties from bringing frivolous patent infringement claims within…
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 5 Oct 2012
Changes to federal law have modified how a party can challenge a United States patent.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 18 Jul 2011
An agreement to assign one’s patent rights is not the same as a patent assignment.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 18 Jul 2011
On May 25, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) evaluated the inequitable conduct defense asserted by the defendant in Therasense v. Becton, Dickinson & Co. and established a more stringent standard for determining inequitable conduct.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 18 Jul 2011
Some valid patent method claims allowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and found novel over the prior art during litigation are not enforceable when infringed.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 8 Sep 2010
Due to changes in the tests for obviousness and patent eligible subject matter established in recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, many existing patents having claims that were issued using previous tests may be invalid or too broad.
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP | USA | 1 Sep 2010
In December 2008, after buying some Brooks Brothers’ bow ties that were marked with two expired patents, patent attorney Raymond Stauffer brought a qui tam action against the clothing manufacturer alleging it had falsely marked the ties under 35 U.S.C. § 292 (the “false marking” statute).