News and Articles

Do Business Method Patents Hurt or Help?

Do Business Method Patents Hurt or Help? A Financial Industry Perspective, 14 VA. J.L. & TECH. 147 (2009). Abstract The State Street Bank decision of 1998 affirmed U.S. business method patents. Along with the subsequent downpour of patent filings came a shower of commentary from the legal and business communities alike. The literature has generally been thoughtful and well-reasoned, or at least well-meaning. But as practitioners in the fields, we




FIRREA and Bank Fraud

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in U.S. ex rel. O’Donnell v. Bank of America Corp et al., No. 12-01422 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), has endorsed a broad interpretation of a savings-and-loan era law that the Justice Department is trying to use in cases against Wall Street banks. This ruling came as part of a federal case against Bank of America over allegations that it sold toxic




America Invents Act Creates a Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents

The America Invents Act (AIA) creates new administrative trial procedures to challenge patentability outside litigation before a district court venue. These trial procedures are namely (1) Post Grant Review (PGR), (2) Inter Partes Review (IPR) and (3) a transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents. These laws went into effect on September 16, 2012. This update covers the transitional program for covered business method patents. A specific post-grant review




Federal Circuit and Advisory Council Model Orders

On July 22, 2013, a model order relating to the number of asserted claims and prior art references in patent litigations was released on the Federal Circuit Advisory Council’s webpage. The order required that in the first phase, plaintiffs must select 10 claims per patent, and 32 claims total, 40 days after production of “core” technical documents, while defendants are limited to 12 prior art references per patent and 40




The U.S. Becomes First-to-File For Patents

On September 16, 2011, President Obama signed the America Invents Act (AIA). Along with other significant changes to the U.S. patent system, this legislation converts the “first to invent” system to a “first inventor to file” system. These provisions of the Act went into effect on March 16, 2013. The new first-inventor-to-file” (FITF) system is a hybrid of the first-to-invent system preceding the Act and an actual first-to-file system, where




The New Way to Challenge A Patent When Threatened: The America Invents Act Creates the Inter Partes Review

The America Invents Act (AIA) creates new administrative trial procedures to challenge patentability outside litigation before a district court venue. These trial procedures are namely (1) Post Grant Review (PGR), (2) Inter Partes Review (IPR) and (3) a transitional program for covered business method patents. These laws went into effect on September 16, 2012. This article covers the basics of the Inter Partes Review.   Post Grant Review (PGR) Inter




The Lanham Act and Jim Brown

On July 31, 2013, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Lanham Act claims brought by Jim Brown, a former NFL star, against video game developer Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA). The court concluded that the Rogers balancing test was the appropriate standard to evaluate defendant EA’s use of Brown’s likeness in video games, and since the use of his likeness was artistically relevant to games, it is protected by the




Myriad and Patenting of the Human Gene

The June 2013 Supreme Court decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. 12-398 (2013) which considered whether portions of human genes may be patented, fueled an extraordinary amount of heated discussion for an intellectual property case. The patents at issue in Myriad concern mutated genes associated with increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Health care advocates worried that a ruling in favor of patentability would make




Claim Construction & Disclaimer –Federal Circuit Sides with the University of Minnesota

07/01/2013 In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. AGA Medical Corp., No. 12-1167 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2013), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s partial dismissal of a suit brought by the University of Minnesota (“the University”) alleging that AGA Medical Corp. (“AGA”) infringed the University’s medical devices patents. The University’s patents cover medical devices for repairing heart defects. Specifically, the two patents, derived from the same parent




ANDA Litigation and Reverse Payments

In Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 133 S. Ct. 787 (2012), the Supreme Court held that reverse payments in pharmaceuticals patent settlement are not categorically immune from the antitrust laws even if such payments fall within the scope of the patent. Often, reverse payments are made by a pioneer drug manufacturer to a generic drug manufacturer in settlement of a patent challenge. In exchange for the payment, the generic