Banner and Witcoff, LTD. Intellectual Property Law logo
Diversity  |  Pro Bono  |  Client Portal  |  Library  |  Subscribe  |    RSS Feeds  |    Blogs
Intellectual Property Law: Counseling,
Licensing, Litigation & Procurement
America Invents Act
On Sept. 16, 2011, President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, the most significant patent reform legislation implemented by Congress in the last 60 years.

Alice v. CLS Bank
On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l that all the patent claims in the case, meaning all method, system and “computer-readable medium” claims, were not patent eligible.

Petrella v. MGM
On May 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of laches could not be invoked to bar a copyright claim that was brought within the statutorily allowed three-year window from a particular act of infringement.
Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures
On Jan. 22, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures. The high court held that the burden of proving infringement remains on the patent owner, even when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement.
Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare
On April 29, 2014, in two unanimous decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court laid down a pair of pivotal changes to the rules governing court awarded attorney’s fees in patent litigations. The two cases centered on 35 U.S.C. § 285, which provides that district courts “in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.”
ABC v. Aereo

On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held in American Broadcasting Companies, et al. v. Aereo that Web-based video streaming service Aereo violates the copyrights of TV networks, but emphasized that cloud computing technologies and other emerging technologies should remain unaffected.

Nautilus v. Biosig
On June 2, 2014, in Nautilus v. Biosig, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s articulation of the definiteness standard, which it said “tolerates some ambiguous claims but not others.”

Limelight v. Akamai
On June 2, 2014, in Limelight v. Akamai, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement when no one has directly infringed under Section 271(a) or any other statute.
Contact Us  |  Locations  |  Disclaimer  |  Sitemap  |  Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. ©2014
design & development: Fathom Creative, Inc. (, Anthony D. Paul (anthonydpaul)