Banner and Witcoff, LTD. Intellectual Property Law logo
Diversity  |  Pro Bono  |  Client Portal  |  Library  |  Subscribe  |    RSS Feeds  |    Blogs
search
Intellectual Property Law: Counseling,
Licensing, Litigation & Procurement
Issues
A A A
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.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee
On April 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, a case involving the PTAB's first final written decision on the merits in an inter partes review proceeding under the America Invents Act.
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
On April 25, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., a case that may affect the circumstances in which attorney’s fees are awarded to prevailing parties in copyright infringement cases.
In Re Simon Shiao Tam
On Dec. 22, 2015, the Federal Circuit held en banc in In Re Simon Shiao Tam that the disparagement provision of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional in violation of the First Amendment.
The Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement
On May 13, 2015, the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs went into effect for the United States.
B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries
On March 24, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., that federal court decisions on "likelihood of confusion" can be precluded by earlier rulings on the same issue from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Biosig v. Nautilus
On April 27, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled once again in Biosig Instruments Inc. v. Nautilus Inc. that a Biosig heart rate monitor patent asserted against Nautilus is not indefinite.

Teva v. Sandoz
On June 18, 2015, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Supreme Court's prior ruling in Teva v. Sandoz did not change the outcome of the case at all, holding that the claims under review were indefinite and therefore invalid.

Limelight v. Akamai
On November 16, 2015, the Federal Circuit ordered a district court judge to reinstate a $45.5 million jury verdict against Limelight Networks Inc. for infringing Akamai Technologies Inc.’s Web content delivery patent, even though Limelight’s customers carried out some steps of the patent.

 
 
 
Contact Us  |  Locations  |  Disclaimer  |  Sitemap  |  Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. ©2016
design & development: Fathom Creative, Inc. (fathomcreative.com), Anthony D. Paul (anthonydpaul)