For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 27, 2018, we will discuss the following cases:
In re Maatita (CAFC August 20, 2018 available here) Petitioner applied for a design patent on an athletic shoe bottom but was rejected. The patent office reasoned that because applicant used a single, two dimensional plan-view drawing to describe […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 20, 2018, we will discuss the following cases:
NantKwest, Inc. v. Iancu (CAFC July 27, 2018 available here) NantKwest applied for a patent at the USPTO but was rejected for obviousness, the PTAB affirmed the rejection on appeal. NanKwest then appealed the board’s decision in district court, […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 13, 2018, we will discuss the following cases:
GoPro, Inc. v. Contour IP Holding (CAFC July 27, 2018 available here) GoPro instituted IPR review of 2 patents owned by a patent holding company (8,890,954 and 8,896,694). The PTAB found GoPro failed to demonstrate the alleged claims obvious and unpatentable. The CAFC remanded. […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 6, 2018, we will discuss a recent victory at the CAFC:
Applications In Internet Time v. RPX Corporation (CAFC July 9, 2018 available here) The Federal Circuit decided the scope of what a “real party in interest” is under 35 U.S.C. § 312. The statute mandates the petitioner […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 30, 2018, we will discuss:
Jazz Pharm. v. Amneal Pharm. CAFC Fed Cir 7/13/18) (available here). The CAFC consolidated six IPR proceedings against patents owned by Jazz pharmaceuticals. At issue was whether information posted to the FDA’s website relating to testing certain drugs was publicly accessible. Jazz […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 23, 2018, we will discuss the following Petition for Certiorari:
Advanced Video Technologies v. HTC Corporation (available here)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 19 provides that where a necessary party to a lawsuit has not been joined, “the court must order that the person be made a party.” […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 16, 2018, we will discuss:
Apple and Google v. ContentGuard v. Iancu (CAFC July 11, 2018) (available here). Google and Apple tried to invalidate a patent using a procedure for CBM’s (covered business methods). They argued U.S. Patent 7,774,280, a patent for digital rights management, could be classified […]
Please join us for our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 9, 2018.
SoCal IP welcomes Adam Grant of Alpert Barr & Grant, a prestigious business boutique in Encino, California. Mr. Grant will lead a presentation on General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in light of the California Consumer Privacy Act 2018.
All are invited to join us on […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 2, 2018, we will discuss:
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (US June 22, 2018) (available here). 35 U. S. C. §271(f)(2) imposes liability on those who ship components of a patented invention overseas to be assembled there. The specific issue in this case is whether one suing […]
For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 25, 2018, we will discuss:
Moldex-Metric, Inc. v. McKeon Products, Inc.. (9th Cir June 5, 2018) (available here). Moldex-Metric, Inc. manufactures earplugs made from a bright green color. McKeon Products manufactured its own version of green earplugs, and Moldex sued them for trademark infringment. The district court granted Defendant’s […]