Verlander LLP

Question of the Week: In view of Collision Communications v. Samsung, when is an injunction an appropriate remedy for an NPE?

patentlyo.com

Question of the Week: Given that litigants, district court judges and appellate court judges have complained since the Alice decision that they do not really know how to analyze whether patents are eligible under 35 USC 101, how is it possible that any case is found exceptional for asserting a patent later found patent ineligible?

www.cafc.uscourts.gov

Question of the Week: Should the PTO be able to file patent and/or trademark applications as a custodian of government officials?

democrats-judiciary.house.gov

Question of the week: In Federal Express v. Qualcomm, the Federal Circuit held they could not review the PTAB’s failure to address whether all real parties-in-interest were identified in the IPR petition, even though it's required by statute. Shouldn't there be a way to correct such mistakes?

www.cafc.uscourts.gov

Question of the Week: Will Judge Albright’s retirement dramatically affect the number of patent cases being filed in WDTX?

Judge Albright, Texas Patent Magnet, Leaving Bench in August (2) Judge Alan Albright of the US District Court for the Western District of Texas is stepping down from the bench, two people familiar with his decision told Bloomberg Law on Tuesday.

Question of the Week: Should a marking obligation be triggered by a license obtained through a litigation settlement when the accused infringer denies liability?

35 USC 287: Limitation on damages and other remedies; marking and notice (a) Patentees, and persons making or selling any patented article for or under them, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat.", together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, thi...

Question of the Week: The Patent Office has introduced a new procedure allowing a patent owner an early SNQ challenge to a filed ex parte reexamination request. How effective will that be in stemming the increasing use of EPRs?

www.uspto.gov

Question of the Week: In Fortress v. Digger, the Federal Circuit invalidated Fortress’ patent because Fortress could not add an inventor who it could not locate. Section 256(b) states "[t]he error of omitting inventors … shall not invalidate the patent … if it can be corrected.” Could it be corrected?

www.cafc.uscourts.gov

Question of the Week: In Cox Communications v. Sony, did the Supreme Court effectively eliminate copyright infringement for service providers by limiting liability to instances when providers intended for its services to infringe?

www.supremecourt.gov

Question of the Week: Under the recent PTO memo concerning additional factors to consider in deciding whether to institute an IPR, does it make sense that manufacturing a product in the US--an act that could give rise to infringement of a patent--would also make it more likely to invalidate that patent?

www.uspto.gov