SoCalIP Law Institute Weekly Meeting – March 14, 2022 – Analogous Prior Art & Moderna-NIH Patent conflict

Please join us on Monday, March 14, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss the concept of Analogous Prior Art in Obviousness rejections, as well as delve into the issues in the Moderna-NIH conflict over Covid vaccine patent rights. Please see Analogous Prior Art slides here. Please see Moderna-NIH slides here, and patent filing [...]

Pleading Infringement does not Require Claim Element-by-Element Infringement Pleadings and Proving Internet Publications that are Prior Art

Pleading Infringement does not Require Claim Element-by-Element Pleadings and Proving Internet Publications that are Prior Art Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 26, 2021 will be a presentation by Angelo Gaz and discussion of a CAFC finding that pleading infringement does not require claim chart level assertions and a PTAB finding that [...]

SoCal IP Institute meeting – Monday, February 8, 2021

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 8, 2021 we will discuss the following In re Mohapatra (CAFC, Feb. 5, 2021) (Opinion here) (Patent App Pub here) Federal Circuit finds claims are directed to the abstract idea. Mohapatra’s innovation was to create a more dynamic security code than the 3-4 digit code [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: Nov. 7, 2016 :: Fed. Cir. Resurrects Software Patents Previously Found Ineligible Under Alice in Amdocs Case

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, Nov. 7, 2016, we will discuss the following: AMDOCS (ISRAEL) LIMITED v. OPENET TELECOM, INC., OPENET TELECOM LTD. (Fed Cir. Nov. 1, 2016) (available here).  In a 61 page opinion, a split federal circuit holds that 4 Amdocs patents were erroneously found ineligible under Alice. Judge Plager authored the opinion [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: October 24, 2016 :: Disavowal of Patent Claim Scope and No Copyright Infringement of “Who’s on First?”

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 24, 2016, we will discuss the following: Poly America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc. (Fed Cir. October 14, 2016) (available here). Plaintiff brought a patent infringement action, where the district court found that the patent and prosecution history "contain clear and unequivocal statements that the [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: February 22, 2016 :: Representing competitors at the same time and inequitable conduct during patent prosecution

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 22, 2016, will be a discussion of the following: Maling v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, Dunner, LLP, (Mass. SJC 12/23/15) (available here). An inventor sued the firm prosecuting his patents alleging that the same firm represented his competitor without disclosing the engagement to him. The Massachusetts Superior Court [...]

By |2016-02-19T13:32:39-08:00February 19th, 2016|Prosecution, Inequitable Conduct|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: October 1, 2012 :: Inequitable Conduct and Judgment as a Matter of Law

We will be discussing two Federal Circuit cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 1, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. Outside the Box Innovations, LLC. v. Travel Caddy, Inc., Case No. 2009-1171 (Fed. Cir. September 21, 2012) (attached). Travel Caddy brought suit against Outside the Box Innovations claiming infringement of [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: September 24, 2012 :: Induced Infringement and Covenants Not to Compete

We will be discussing one Federal Circuit case and one California Court of Appeal case during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, September 24, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., Case Nos. 2009-1372, -1380, -1416, -1417 and McKesson Techs., Inc., v. Epic Systems Corp., Case No. [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: August 13, 2012 :: Trademark Abandonment and Claim Construction

We will be discussing two Federal Circuit cases during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 13, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Case No. 2011-1258 (Fed. Cir. August 3, 2012) (attached). The Wesley-Jessen Corporation obtained Trademark Registration No. 2,175,334 for the mark LENS in connection with [...]

Go to Top