Author Archive | Charles Bieneman

Amending Patent Infringement Contentions

When do the results of claim construction proceedings justify a patent plaintiff in amending its infringement contentions?  A court in the Eastern District of Texas allowed the plaintiff to accuse certain software components for the first time following the conclusion of claim construction proceedings.  SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-158-JRG (E.D. Texas […]

Continue Reading

Misrepresenting Infringement Under the DMCA

A pro se plaintiff was unable to plead adequately that Viacom had knowingly misrepresented that the plaintiff infringed Viacom’s copyrights when Viacom sent DMCA takedown notices to various content providers.  Ouellette v. Viacom International, Inc., No. CV 10-133-M-DWM-JCL (D. Mont. March 13, 2012).  Therefore, the court granted Viacom’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under […]

Continue Reading

Meeting the Notice Pleading Standard for Patent Infringement

The court in Gradient Enterprises, Inc. v. Skype Technologies S.A, No. 10-CV-6712L (W.D.N.Y. March 13, 2012), addressed the confusion concerning pleading standards in patent infringement actions following the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, as well as the Federal Circuit’s McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp. decision.  In dismissing […]

Continue Reading

Stays Pending Reexamination: Timing Matters

As demonstrated by the recent opinion in Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., No. C 10-04645 RS (N.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2012), timing and circumstances can be very important when seeking a stay of litigation pending a patent reexamination proceeding.  Long used as a defense tactic in patent litigation generally, reexaminations have become a […]

Continue Reading

Claims Upheld Under Bilski in the E.D. Texas

A recent Eastern District of Texas decision found patentable subject matter in claims directed to determining Current Procedural Technology (“CPT”) codes based on information gathered during a physician-patient encounter.   Prompt Medical Systems, L.P. v.  AllscriptsMisys Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30694, No. 6:10-CV-71 (E.D. Texas Feb. 13, 2012). Procedural Setting Defendants brought a […]

Continue Reading

Service by E-mail

Internet scofflaws often operate anonymously or under pseudonyms, and frequently provide false addresses, making them difficult to locate and serve.  This has led some courts to allow service via e-mail, a helpful tool to remember in the often frustrating battle against the anonymity of cyber squatters, domain name infringers, and the like. For example, in […]

Continue Reading

Mixing a System and Method Steps in a Single Patent Claim

A recent Eastern District of Texas opinion holds that a patent claim can recite a system that performs method steps without being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.  § 112, ¶ 2.  Oasis Research v. AT&T Corp, 2012 U.S. No. 4:10-CV-00435 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2012).  Magistrate Judge Mazzant acknowledged “various cases holding that mixed apparatus and […]

Continue Reading

Must an Offer to License Be Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory?

What does a patent owner have to do to meet a requirement of a standards setting organization (SSO) that license terms be reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND)?  Does the patent owner simply need to be willing to license on RAND terms, or does the patent owner have to include RAND terms in its initial offer?  In […]

Continue Reading

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes