American actor, Alec Baldwin recently won a case against a New York art gallery over an alleged fake painting case.

In a recent decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denied the institution of a covered business method (CBM) patent review on an Internet Portal System patent because the claims lacked any recitation of a financial product ornancial activity.

Ericsson v. Lava

India’s smartphone patent war gets more intense and it’s latest development is Ericsson’s provisional victory over Lava.

In the Plaintiffs SKECHERS USA INC & ORS versus defendant PURE PLAY SPORTS case, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of Covered Business Method (CBM) patent review in a proceeding between AT&T Mobility and Intellectual Ventures, based on U.S. Patent No. 5,339,352. This is another useful decision by the PTAB, placing boundaries on patents that are eligible for CBM review requiring more than a mere example in the specification mentioning a financial activity.

OpinionLab, Inc. is the owner of the '805 patent, and Qualtrics, LLC filed a petition for CBM (Covered Business Method) review of all 33 claims of the '805 patent. In a previous inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, Qualtrics had challenged many of the same claims of the '805 patent as it did in the CBM review, only on different grounds. In the IPR, the PTAB determined that Qualtrics had failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claims of the '805 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In seeking CBM review, Qualtrics challenged the claims of the '805 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
Page 1 of 8

Newsletter Subscription

Joomla forms builder by JoomlaShine

IP2017 Banner 380x280

IP Era 300x250

Go to top