Archive | April, 2012

Inequitable Conduct After Therasense: Definitely Harder to Prove

Specific intent to deceive the USPTO did not exist where an inventor removed mention of a reference from his patent application, and then testified that the “reference was cumulative or merely provided background information.”  Imura International U.S.A., Inc. v. HR Technology, Inc., No. 08-2220 (D. Kans. April 24, 2012).  The party asserting inequitable conduct also […]

Read full story

Answering an In Rem Action Against a Domain Name under the ACPA

The Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) allows a trademark owner to “file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located” where personal jurisdiction over […]

Read full story

A Narrow View of “Loss” under the CFAA

A recent case takes a narrow view of the “loss” that will sustain a civil action under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, a criminal statute that includes a right of civil suit favored by many plaintiffs.  Int’l. Chauffeured Service, Inc. v. Faster Operating Corp, No. 11 Civ. 2662 (S.D.N.Y. April […]

Read full story

Patent Infringement: Summary Judgment Fails Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

When is a patent infringement defendant entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents?  That question was addressed in CSB-Systems International, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 10-2156 (E.D. Pa. April 16, 2012), where the court granted summary judgment of no literal infringement, but denied the defendant summary judgment of non-infringement under […]

Read full story

Preliminary Injunction for Software Copyright Infringement

When can a plaintiff obtain a preliminary injunction relating to a customer’s use and distribution of copyrighted software beyond the scope of the customer’s license?  The court in Accusoft Corp. v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-40007 (D. Mass. April 18, 2012), granted a preliminary injunction, but limited the preliminary relief so as to properly balance […]

Read full story

Impact of Therasense: Defendant Denied Motion to Plead Inequitable Conduct

In Pixion, Inc. v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. C 09-03496 (N.D. Cal. April 16, 2012), the court denied Citrix’s motion for leave to amend its Answer to plead the affirmative defense of inequitable conduct because Citrix could not “show that the USPTO would have rejected the” patents-in-suit even if the allegedly withheld reference had been […]

Read full story

Ninth Circuit Affirms Narrow Construction of “exceeds authorized access” in the CFAA

The Ninth Circuit has affirmed that the phrase “exceeds authorized access” in the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) should be read to cover only accessing prohibited files, rather than making unauthorized use of files to which one had been permitted access.  United States v. Nosal, No. 10-10038 (9th Cir. Apr. 10, 2012).  In a […]

Read full story

Business Methods Patents Still Being Asserted in Litigation

Business methods patents are alive and well, based at least on an anecdotal review of recent court filings.  Consider, for example, a case that I have selected more or less at random, Phoenix Licensing LLC v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, filed on April 16, 2012, in the Eastern District of Texas.  Phoenix Licensing, which Internet […]

Read full story

Patent Infringement Notice Pleading: A Lesson from Contrasting Cases?

Two recent cases provide a contrast that may illustrate minimum notice pleading requirements for patent infringement plaintiffs.  In j2 Global Communications, Inc. v. Vitelity Communications, LLC, No. CV 11-07904 (C.D. Cal. April 12, 2012), the court held that the plaintiff had adequately described the accused products, and denied a motion to dismiss.  In contrast, the […]

Read full story

Intellectual Property Assignments Are Crucial

This item is mainly for non-lawyers.  The worst thing in the world is to have difficulty obtaining an assignment of source code ownership from a software developer, or for the developer to depart with valuable trade secrets.  Working from the context of medical device development, my former colleague Steve Hansen has written a great post […]

Read full story