Filed under: Case Updates , Patents | 4 October, 2011 by GHollis

 On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA) in to law. The major thrust behind the Act was to harmonize U.S. patent law with that of other countries, such as Japan and those in the European Union.  Prior to the AIA, the last major overall to the patent system occurred in 1952. Thus, the complexity, scope, and speed of technological innovations caused a patent application backlog, which in most cases exceeded two years.   After bipartisan review of the current patent system, it became evident that certain changes were necessary to provide sufficient protection to innovators. (more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 25 August, 2011 by GHollis

Decided August 11, 2011

 In this holding Privacash, Inc., appealed the decision from the Western District of Wisconsin.  The district court entered a summary judgment stating cards sold by the American Express Company and its affiliates did not infringe the patent held by Privacash.  The prior court’s holding was based on the rationale that the accused cards were not “bearer instruments” as required by the asserted claim in Privacash’s patent. Federal Circuit affirmed this holding using financial definition to construe the meaning of a bearer instrument in the claim of Privacash’s patent. (more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 7 June, 2011 by GHollis

Decided May 31, 2011

In this holding the Supreme Court established the level of requisite knowledge needed to substantiate induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  The Court’s holding made three major points. First, induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.  Second, deliberate indifference to a known risk that a patent exist does not satisfy the knowledge required by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).  Finally, factual support affirming the doctrine of willful blindness can substantiate the knowledge required by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

The Court granted certiorari based on an  appeal from the Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the prior District Court ruling which held for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). (more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 17 May, 2011 by GHollis

Decided May 4, 2011

In the prior district court case, Gary Odom asserted that his patent was infringed by Microsoft software.  Odom owned a U.S. patent, involving a method for manipulating groups of “tools” in “toolbars” found in computer software applications.   In its holding, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon ruled in favor of Microsoft Corporation declaring the patent invalid due to obviousness.  After a de novo review of the prior district court case, the Federal Circuit evaluated the asserted claims of the patent in suit and found the claims to be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.  This conclusion affirmed the prior district court ruling. (more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 17 May, 2011 by GHollis

Decided: April 25, 2011

The question before the CAFC was whether a patentee’s activities directed at the forum state were sufficient to give the forum court personal jurisdiction over the patentee in a declaratory judgment action.  The district court in this case previously held that the defendant’s (Accession) activities were not sufficient to give the court personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and the CAFC affirmed.  (more…)

Filed under: Jobs | 14 April, 2011 by Chris Lightner

Would you like to pursue a great career opportunity in a rapidly growing, fast-paced and entrepreneurial environment?  At Kids II, we have the opportunity to enhance the daily lives of millions of families around the world and we’re determined to make the most of it. After all, our employees have over 150 kids of their own! If you are looking for a fun and innovative environment that will challenge you and provide room for continued growth, then Kids II is for you.

(more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 1 April, 2011 by GHollis

Decided: March 25, 2011

Saregama asserted that hip hop producer Timbaland infringed its sound recording copyright by digitally sampling a portion of the Indian song “Baghor Mein Bahar Hai”.  As a part of the holding, the court had to evaluate ownership and assignment based on the Indian Copyright Act of 1957 and the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976.  Prior federal cases have held, initial ownership of a copyrighted work is determined by the laws in the work’s country of origin. The court used the Indian Copyright Act to establish ownership.  In addition to ownership, the court had to determine if the plaintiff had standing based on the Copyright Act of 1976.  In order to make a prima facie case of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show that (1) it owns a valid copyright  and (2) defendants copied protected elements from the work. (more…)

Filed under: Case Updates | 1 April, 2011 by GHollis

Decided: March  21, 2011

American Piledriving brought patent infringement claims against Geoquip for allegedly infringing its vibratory assembly patent. The prosecution history in this matter involved claim construction and infringement issues common to seven separate law-suits in the Eastern District of Virginia and Northern District of California.  In its holding, the CAFC consolidated American Piledriving’s appeals from both districts; the prior ruling in both districts granted summary judgment in favor of Geoquip for noninfirngment.  (more…)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 16 March, 2011 by Lauren

Click here to view the IP Section’s Spring 2011 Newsletter.

In this issue:

• Results from the Section Survey
• Update on Design Patent Infringement Post Egyptian Goddess
• Committee Updates

Filed under: Case Updates | 2 March, 2011 by Lauren

As a service to its members and the IP community at large, the IP Section of the State Bar of Georgia has launched a new service of case updates to keep you current on breaking cases in IP law from across the country.  The service is provided by volunteer support from our Section Members and is edited by the Website Committee of the IP Section.

The Section would like to particularly thank Chris Glass for providing editorial services, Gaylon Hollis of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Michael Tanenbaum of Georgia Tech/Emory University.

• Gaylon is a 2009 Georgia State University School of Law graduate with a concentration in intellectual property; he was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2009.  He is currently a Systems Engineer at Lockheed Martin.   A registered patent attorney, has also completed his Master’s thesis in acoustics and biomechanics.
• Michael graduated from Georgia State University College of Law in 2010 with a focus on intellectual property, and was admitted to the Georgia Bar in 2010.  He earned a Master’s degree in bioengineering from Georgia Tech, where he currently works as a Research Engineer in the Neurological Biomaterials and Cancer Therapeutics Laboratory.

Do you have a case that you think should be reviewed?  Please let us know.  Send us an email to: cglass@mmmlaw.com