Is a Patent Infringed by Activation of Software Abroad from a System in the U.S.?

In a discovery context, at least, one should assume that a U.S.-based system that activates software sold abroad can infringe a U.S. patent.  Prism Technologies v. Adobe Systems Inc., No. 8:10CV220 (D. Neb. July 17, 2012).  Prism sought financial data and activation data “pertaining to Symantec’s use of its U.S.-based software activation system to activate […]

Read full story

Attorney Fees in In rem Cybersquatting Action?

A Virginia court has granted relief to a plaintiff in an in rem action involving a domain name, but has denied a request for attorney fees because the mere failure of the domain name registrant to appear was insufficient evidence of the bad faith intent required to make an exceptional case under the Lanham Act.  […]

Read full story

Copyright Infringement and Software Version Control

Enforcing a software copyright depends on good source code version control.  This is because enforcing a software copyright depends on being able to produce the version of software whose copyright is alleged to be infringed.  In Indyne, Inc. v. Abacus Technology Corp., No: 6:11-cv-137-Orl-22DAB (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2012), the defendant’s motion for summary judgment […]

Read full story

2nd Cir. Applies Lear Doctrine to Pre-Lititgation Settlement Agreement

The Second Circuit has held that “a clause in a settlement agreement which bars a patent licensee from later challenging the patent’s validity is void for public policy reasons under the Supreme Court’s decision in Lear, Inc. v. Adkins.”  Rates Technology Inc. v. Speakeasy, Inc., No. 11-4462-cv (July 10, 2012). Rates Technology Inc. (“RTI”), owner […]

Read full story

Business Method Claims Patentable Says Fed. Cir.

Patent claims directed to using an intermediary in financial transactions to eliminate settlement risk have been held to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  CLS Bank Int’l. v. Alice Corp., No. 2011-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2012).  Writing for the majority of a divided panel, Judge Linn, joined by Judge O’Malley, emphasized […]

Read full story

Violations of Employer’s Computer Use Restrictions Does Not Violate CFAA

Hospital employees did not “exceed authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 USC § 1030, when they violated the hospital’s computer usage policy by attaching removable storage devices to computers that they were otherwise authorized to access.  Wentworth-Douglass Hospital v. Young & Novis Professional Ass’n., No. 10-cv-120-SM (D. N.H. June 29, […]

Read full story

Software Licenses and Allocating Risk of Data Loss

The Utah Supreme Court has held that a software vendor is not liable for any damages after its software caused a dentist to lose all of his patient data.  In Blaisdell v. Dentrix Dental Systems, Inc., No. 20100392 (Utah S. Ct. June 26, 2012), the court held that a limitation of liabilities provision was enforceable […]

Read full story

PTO Updates Mayo v. Prometheus Examining Guidelines

“Preliminary guidance” has been replaced by “interim guidance.”  The United States Patent and Trademark Office has released its 2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Patentability Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature.  The interim guidelines, based on the recent Supreme Court decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., are to be followed […]

Read full story

Fed. Cir. Impact on Patent Pleading Requirements Continues

Following the recent Federal Circuit decision in In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation, at least one district court has already demonstrated that patent plaintiffs will most definitely have an easier time pleading patent infringement.  Now a Delaware court, ruling on complaints in eight cases brought by the same plaintiff, has […]

Read full story

Indefiniteness of Software Patent Claims; Certificates of Correction

Whether means-plus-function claims were indefinite, and the effect of a certificate of correction on correcting a patent’s priority date, were two of the interesting issues discussed by the court in Carotek, Inc. v. Event Capturing Systems, Inc., Nos. 07 Civ. 11163 (NRB), 08 Civ. 5706 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y. Nune 28, 2012).  The court held that one […]

Read full story