“A fairy tale?” you ask. Well, yes. Because every once in a while, even though the work has piled up, you feel energized and spirited about something enough during breakfast on a Sunday morning that ideas just well up and the words spring onto the page. And if you have a couple of spritely, cheerful teenage daughters who occasionally read stories, narratives intersect and you just have a little fun with things. And that’s what happened here. So, a fairy tale … of a sort. And here goes.
In posts here on my blog on March 27 and April 3, I described how in Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint et al. the district court for the Northern District of California invalidated a valuable pair of what had been durable software patents—a decision that in February the Federal Circuit upheld.
Both courts erred in overlooking valid claims, although in the wake of the wacky Alice ruling, such a decision might not have been unexpected.
I have a hard time listening to Washington politicians these days. All I hear is obfuscation and finger-pointing. Nothing seems to get done. And while the finger-pointing seems worse than ever, the inability to get anything done is par for the course.
If neither Congress nor the President can provide results, how can we get this country back on track?
Please consider the below amicus request for support overturning an important section 101 decision at the Federal Circuit and thereby providing consistent guidance on what types of inventions are “abstract.”
Evolutionary Intelligence will be filing a combined petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit on April 19, 2017. Amicus support would be due by May 3, 2017.
I am honored to have drafted the brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, U.S., No. 16-341 (2017), which concerns the appropriate scope of venue in patent infringement cases.
The brief supports the Federal Circuit interpretation of the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” applicable in the patent venue statute later in that chapter at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
Monday, May 2, was a big day for me: I joined specialist litigation firm Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC as a partner.
There’s a story here, of course. Katten is a great firm with great people. I learned a lot while I was there. But I’ve worked my entire career at some pretty large law firms, and while I appreciated the opportunities, experience, and advantages that big law presents, it was time for a change.
Here come the biosimilars. Last month, Sandoz, a subsidiary of Swiss multinational pharmaceutical company Novartis, launched Zarxio, the first U.S.-approved biosimilar to be introduced under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
BPCIA, as the reader likely knows, created a pathway to regulatory approval of a competitive biologic, analogous to what Hatch-Waxman did with the accelerated new drug application (ANDA) route for generic pharmaceuticals in 1984.
Breaking news! Did you hear? “Patent troll disrupts safety of thousands; victims urge Congress to legislate.” So runs the headline from a recent article by reporter Amanda Ciccatelli at InsideCounsel.com.
Stop the presses!!! One patent troll is disrupting the safety of thousands, and its victims are urging Congress to legislate. Help!
If you’re an innovation buff, and I am, the Internet of Things is thrilling. That is, when it’s not a little creepy.
If you’re a football fan (and I am), learning that this season in the National Football League, worn sensors will connect players’ movements on the field to a computer for the purpose of data analysis seems kind of fun—although, outside the sports arena and taken to an extreme, this type of tracking could get really creepy. (More on that in a minute.)
ABC’s Shark Tank has become my favorite show. I guess you could have predicted that. Every Friday night, my girls and I settle down on the couch to get our fix. Bring on the munchies!
Did anyone catch last week’s episode (EP605), apparently a rerun from 17 October 2014? In the first presentation, the contestants presented an inner-tube with metal bars in the middle to support safe jumping. Called the Jungle Jumparoo.