Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP - Intellectual Property Law http://www.arelaw.com/ Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein is a well-established mid-sized legal firm engaged exclusively in the practice of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related matters. Since our inception in 1953, we have earned an impressive record of successes for our clients, from individuals to multinational corporations, both domestic and worldwide. These successes are borne of the vigorous application of legal expertise, innovation and objective analysis. en Mon, 23 Jul 2018 09:23:43 +0000 Floodlight Design CMS CONGRATULATIONS TO THREE FIRM PARTNERS LISTED IN 2018 Leaders League<br><br>June 2018<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress07102018/ <div>Congratulations to Partners Daniel Ebenstein, Holly Pekowsky and Max Vern on being listed in the 2018 Leaders League Innovation - Technology &amp; Intellectual Property including:<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Partner Holly Pekowsky for being Excellent for Trademark Prosecution in New York City.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Partners Daniel Ebenstein and Max Vern for being Highly Recommended for Trademark Litigation in USA and New York City, and Patent Litigation in New York City.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Partners Holly Pekowsky and Max Vern for being Highly Recommended for Trademark Prosecution in USA.<br /><br /><a href="http://assets.leadersleague.com/guides/innovation/2018/2018-ip-it-bd.pdf" target="_blank">assets.leadersleague.com/guides/innovation/2018/2018-ip-it-bd.pdf</a></div> Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress07102018/ CONGRATULATIONS TO THREE FIRM PARTNERS NAMED IP STARS BY MANAGING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY FOR 2018<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress071018/ Managing IP IP Stars, June 24, 2018<br /><br />Congratulations to Partners Daniel Ebenstein, Anthony Lo Cicero and Charles Macedo for being named IP Stars by Managing Intellectual Property again in 2018, including:<br /><br />Daniel Ebenstein and Charles Macedo being named Trade Mark Start and Patent Star; and<br />Anthony Lo Cicero being named Patent Star.<br /><br /><a href="https://www.ipstars.com/firms/amster-rothstein-and-ebenstein/f-1563#/ip-stars" target="_blank">www.ipstars.com/firms/amster-rothstein-and-ebenstein/f-1563#/ip-stars</a><br type="_moz" /> Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress071018/ US Supreme Court determines that PTAB must issue a final written decision addressing all challenged claims in <i>inter partes<i> reviews http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jilpl07102018/ - Journal of Intellectual Property Law &amp; Practice, jpy092,&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy092" target="_blank">doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy092<br /><br /></a><u><strong>Abstract<br /><br /></strong></u>SAS Institute Inc v Iancu, No 16&ndash;969, US Supreme Court, 24 April 2018<br /><br />In SAS Institute Incv Iancu, the Supreme Court of the USAissued a 5&ndash;4 opinion that reversed the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that &lsquo;the petitioner in an inter partes reviewis entitled to a decision on all the claims it has challenged&rsquo;.<br /><br />SAS addressed an important question regarding US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice in issuing a final written decision: &lsquo;When the Patent Office initiates an inter partes review, must it resolve all of the claims in the case, or may it choose to limit its review to...<br /><br /><a href="https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpy092/5051700?guestAccessKey=6415d0ad-c8f6-4a46-ae2b-b5967e1a70e2" target="_blank">Full Article</a> Tue, 10 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jilpl07102018/ US Appellate Court boosts ‘diagnose and treat’ claims http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jiplpjuly052018/ Journal of Intellectual Property Law &amp; Practice, jpy091,&nbsp;<a href="http:// https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy091" target="_blank"> https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy091<br /><br /></a><u><strong>Abstract</strong></u><br /><br /><div>Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc v West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 126 USPQ2d 1266 (2018), 13 April 2018</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified that, at least in special circumstances, a&lsquo;diagnose and treat&rsquo;claim is both patent-eligible and enforceable.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Patentability of medical diagnosis claims has been severely curtailed in the US by the 2012&thinsp;US Supreme Court decision in Mayo Collaborative Sers v Prometheus Labs, Inc 566&thinsp;US 66 (2012) (Mayo). This is in contrast to the situation at the European Patent Office (see Brian Amos and Alan D Miller, &lsquo;Differing Diagnoses for European and US Patents. Nature Biotechnology&rsquo; (2017) 35(4) Nat Biotechnol...<br /><br /><a href="https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jiplp/jpy091/5049580?guestAccessKey=3e4060d5-01e2-450a-9cf3-4602368f29a4" target="_blank">Full Article</a></div> Thu, 05 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jiplpjuly052018/ ARE Patent Law Alert:<br>SUPREME COURT TO CLARIFY ‘ON SALE’ BAR IN HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. V. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC.<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert06292018/ <div><div>On June, 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.</i>, No. 17-1229 to address the scope of the &ldquo;on-sale bar&rdquo; after the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (&ldquo;AIA&rdquo;). Specifically, the Court will consider whether confidential prior sales of an invention trigger the on-sale bar, and qualify as prior art that can invalidate a patent under the AIA verion of 35 U.S.C. &sect;102(a)(1).&nbsp; The Supreme Court agreed to hear Helsinn&rsquo;s appeal of the Federal Circuit decision invalidating a patent under the post-AIA version of the on-sale bar based on a secret sale.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Question Presented</b></div> <div><b>&nbsp;</b></div> <div>Helsinn&rsquo;s Petition presents the issue as follows:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div style="margin-left:.5in">Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor&rsquo;s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b>Federal Circuit Decision</b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The decision by the Federal Circuit below dealt with the interpretation of the post-AIA on-sale bar under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 102(a)(1), which provides that a patent can be rendered invalid if the invention was &ldquo;on sale&rdquo; more than one year before the filing date of the patent application. &nbsp;&nbsp;Section 120(a)(1) reads in pertinent part:</div> <div style="margin-left:.5in"><br /> A person shall be entitled to a patent unless &hellip; the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&amp;height=800&amp;iframe=true&amp;def_id=35-USC-599169431-410584075&amp;term_occur=5&amp;term_src=title:35:part:II:chapter:10:section:102" title="claimed invention"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed invention</span></a>&nbsp;was &hellip; on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&amp;height=800&amp;iframe=true&amp;def_id=35-USC-599169431-410584075&amp;term_occur=6&amp;term_src=title:35:part:II:chapter:10:section:102" title="claimed invention"><span style="color: windowtext; text-decoration-line: none;">claimed invention</span></a>.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The Federal Circuit held that the on-sale bar can be triggered even when the buyer is required to keep the invention confidential.&nbsp; Specifically, the court held, &ldquo;after the AIA, if the existence of the sale is public, the details of the invention need not be publicly disclosed in terms of sale&rdquo; for the sale to be invalidating.&nbsp; <i>Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.</i>, 855 F.3d 1356, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017).</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After determining that a sale had occurred, the Federal Circuit looked to the language of the statute and legislative history of the AIA.&nbsp; <i>See id</i> at 1371.&nbsp; The Federal Circuit rejected Helsinn&rsquo;s (and several amici&rsquo;s) argument that the AIA changed the law by adding the phrase &ldquo;or otherwise available to the public&rdquo; to Section 102, such that a sale must make the invention available to the public in order to trigger application of the on-sale bar.&nbsp; In rejecting this argument, the Federal Circuit reasoned that requiring the details of the claimed invention to be publicly-disclosed before the on-sale bar is triggered would be a foundational change in the theory of the statutory on-sale bar, because the law is clear that &ldquo;publicly offering a product for sale that embodies the claimed invention places it in the public domain, regardless of when or whether actual delivery occurs.&rdquo; &nbsp;<i>Id.</i> at 1369-70.&nbsp; As such, the Federal Circuit found the patent at issue to be invalid.&nbsp; <i>See</i> <i>id</i>.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The Federal Circuit denied Helsinn&rsquo;s petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, with Judge O&rsquo;Malley authoring a concurrence opining that Helsinn&rsquo;s petition and various amici briefs filed in support thereof &ldquo;mischaracterize certain aspects of [the] panel opinion and advance policy-based criticisms about aspects of the law that [the Federal Circuit] court is not at liberty to change.&rdquo;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> We will continue to monitor the developments in this case. In the meantime, should you have any questions please feel free to contact one of our lawyers.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> * <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/alocicero/" target="_blank">Anthony F. Lo Cicero</a> and <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a> are partners, <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/shudak/" target="_blank">Sandra A. Hudak</a> is an associate, and Chandler Sturm is a law clerk at Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practice specializes in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes. They may be reached at alocicero@arelaw.com, cmacedo@arelaw.com, shudak@arelaw.com and csturm@arelaw.com.<br /><div>&nbsp;</div> Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert06292018/ ARE Patent Law Alert:<br>USPTO GUIDANCE ON SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY OF METHOD OF TREATMENT CLAIMS<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alertjune-29-2018/ On April 13, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&ldquo;Federal Circuit&rdquo;) affirmed the district court&rsquo;s ruling that the claims at issue in <i>Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals</i>, 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018), were patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101. In a 2-1 split decision, the Court held that claims directed to a specific method of treatment based on a previously-performed, specified diagnosis are patentable.<div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The patent-in-suit in <i>Vanda</i> was U.S. Patent No. 8,586,610:</div> <div>A method for treating a patient with iloperidone, wherein the patient is suffering from schizophrenia, the method comprising the steps of:<br />&nbsp;</div> <div style="&#10;margin-left:.5in">determining whether the patient is a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer by:<br />&nbsp;</div> <div style="&#10;margin-left:.5in;text-indent:.5in">obtaining or having obtained a biological sample from the patient; and<br />&nbsp;</div> <div style="&#10;margin-left:1.0in">performing or having performed a genotyping assay on the biological sample to determine if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype; and<br />&nbsp;</div> <div style="&#10;margin-left:.5in">if the patient has a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount of 12 mg/day or less, and</div> <div style="&#10;margin-left:.5in">if the patient does not have a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype, then internally administering iloperidone to the patient in an amount that is greater than 12<span style="font-size:11.0pt;Times" new="">&nbsp;</span>mg/day, up to 24 mg/day,</div> <div style="margin-left:.5in">wherein a risk of QTc prolongation for a patient having a CYP2D6 poor metabolizer genotype is lower following the internal administration of 12 mg/day or less than it would be if the iloperidone were administered in an amount of greater than 12 mg/day, up to 24 mg/day.</div> <div style="margin-left:.5in">&nbsp;</div> <div>The Federal Circuit found that the&nbsp;<i>Vanda</i>&nbsp;claim is patent-eligible subject matter (i.e., step one of a patentability analysis under 35 U.S.C. &sect;101) and that it was therefore not necessary to proceed with further analysis to determine if the claimed subject matter includes additional elements to transform the nature of the claim from being directed to a patent-ineligible law of nature into a patent-eligible method claim.&nbsp;<i>See id.</i></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The <i>Vanda </i>claims were determined to be patent eligible because they were directed to a method for treating schizophrenia, and were not directed to a judicial exception. The claims were not &ldquo;directed to&rdquo; the natural relationship between iloperidone and an identified side effect. Instead, the claims recited more than the natural relationship by claiming an <i>application </i>of that relationship, and reciting a dosage regimen based on that relationship. <i>Id</i>. at 1135-36. The Court stated, &ldquo;the claims here are directed to a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome. They are different from <i>Mayo</i>.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at 1136.&nbsp; For more information on this decision, please see our alert, Alan D. Miller, Ph.D. et al., <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert042018" target="_blank">ARE Patent Law Alert: &ldquo;Diagnose And Treat&rdquo; Claims Held Patentable By Federal Circuit - A Path Forward For Patentability</a> (April 20, 2018).</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><a href="https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-vanda-20180607.PDF" target="_blank"><b>Guidance - Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Comm&rsquo;r for Patent Examination, to Patent Examining Corps (June 7, 2018)</b></a></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>On June 7, 2018, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (&ldquo;PTO&rdquo;) issued a memorandum addressing the question of how to evaluate the patent eligibility of &ldquo;method of treatment claims&rdquo; in light of the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s decision in<i> Vanda</i>. The memorandum emphasizes that method of treatment claims can be found to satisfy 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101 at the first step of an <i>Alice/Mayo </i>analysis, without requiring a showing of &ldquo;nonroutine or unconventional steps.&rdquo;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The memorandum states that &ldquo;method of treatment&rdquo; claims that apply natural laws may be patent-eligible under the first step of the&nbsp;<i>Alice/Mayo</i>&nbsp;test. It also instructs patent examiners to skip the analysis under the second step of the&nbsp;<i>Alice/Mayo</i>&nbsp;test if a method of treatment claim is considered eligible under the first step. Thus, the guidance offers a simplified analysis for certain method of treatment claims.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The memorandum makes three specific points based on the <i>Vanda </i>decision:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>1. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Claims should be evaluated <b>as a whole, including arguably conventional steps,</b> when determining whether they are &ldquo;directed to&rdquo; a judicial exception.&nbsp; In <i>Vanda</i>, the Federal Circuit had evaluated the claims as a whole, including the genotyping and treatment steps, when determining that the claim was not &ldquo;directed to&rdquo; the recited natural relationship between the patient&rsquo;s genotype and the risk of QTc prolongation.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The memorandum suggests that, despite the &ldquo;administering&rdquo; step, the claims invalidated in <i>Mayo </i>were <b><u>not</u></b> &ldquo;method of treatment&rdquo; claims that applied a natural relationship. Instead, the &ldquo;claim in <i>Mayo</i> recited administering a thiopurine drug to a patient, the claim as a whole was not directed to the application of a drug to treat a particular disease.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at 1134. Thus, <i>Mayo </i>does not undermine the eligibility of &ldquo;method of treatment&rdquo; claims because the <i>Mayo </i>claims were not, themselves, &ldquo;method of treatment&rdquo; claims that practically apply a natural relationship.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>3. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The Memorandum instructs, when determining whether claims are directed to a judicial exception, <b>there is no need to consider whether the recited steps are &ldquo;routine or conventional.&rdquo;</b> If the claims are not directed to a judicial exception, and thus determined to be patent-eligible, there is no need to undertake such an analysis. In other words, if the method of treatment claims are not directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the analysis ends.</div> <div><b>&nbsp;</b></div> <div><b>Conclusion </b></div> <div><b>&nbsp;</b></div> <div>The <i>Vanda </i>memorandum provides clarity as to the patentability of method of treatment claims. When a claim, as a whole, applies a law of nature, it should be considered patent eligible under step one of the <i>Alice/Mayo</i> test. Once the claim is considered patent eligible, there is no need to further analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the law of nature or natural phenomenon. The memorandum provides guidance as to how claims can be drafted to methods of treatment that include a diagnostic step and clarifies how such claims will be analyzed by the PTO.</div> <div><b>&nbsp;</b></div> We will continue to follow the law of patent-eligibility and practice before the USPTO. In the meantime, should you have any questions, please feel free to contact one of our lawyers.<br /><br />*<a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a>, M.S. is a Partner, <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/amiller/" target="_blank">Alan D. Miller</a>, Ph.D. is a Senior Counsel, <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/bamos/" target="_blank">Brian Amos</a>, Ph.D. is an Associate, and Chandler Sturm is a Law Clerk at Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practice specializes in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes. They may be reached at cmacedo@arelaw.com, amiller@arelaw.com, bamos@arelaw.com, and csturm@arelaw.com.<br type="_moz" /> Fri, 29 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alertjune-29-2018/ Federal Circuit panel holds that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java API packages does not constitute fair use under US copyright law<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jiplp06272018/ Journal of Intellectual Property Law &amp; Practice, Volume 13, Issue 8, 1 August 2018, Pages 605&ndash;607, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy082" target="_blank">doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpy082</a><u><strong><br /><br />Abstract</strong></u><br /><br />On 27 March 2018, a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (&lsquo;Federal Circuit&rsquo;) issued a ruling in Oracle America, Incv Google LLC, No 17&ndash;1118, that reversed the district court&rsquo;s decision and found that &lsquo;Google&rsquo;s use of the 37 Java API packages was not fair as a matter of law&rsquo; (slip opinion, 55).<br /><br /><a href="https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/13/8/605/5045933?guestAccessKey=b3772f47-51a5-4486-9cfd-c44d43b529df" target="_blank">Full Article</a> Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/jiplp06272018/ ARE Patent Law Alert:<br>SCOTUS AUTHORIZES FOREIGN LOST PROFITS FOR DOMESTIC INFRINGEMENT UNDER 35 USC 271(f)(2) IN WESTERNGECO v. ION<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert062518/ (June 25, 2018)&nbsp; On June 22, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered an opinion in <i>WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.</i>, No. 16-1011, slip op. (U.S. June 22, 2018), addressing the question of whether a patent owner who proves infringement under 35 U.S.C &sect; 271(f)(2) can recover lost foreign profits pursuant to 35 U.S.C. &sect; 284. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that an infringer found liable under the statute can be forced to pay damages for infringement that occurs outside of the United States. Slip op. at 8-9. This decision overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s (&ldquo;Federal Circuit&rdquo;) ruling, which had enforced limits on applying the statutes extraterritorially. <i>Id</i>. at 4.<div>&nbsp;</div><div><b>Background</b></div><div><b>&nbsp;</b></div><div>By way of background, WesternGeco LLC (&ldquo;WesternGeco&rdquo;) owns patents for a system used to scan the ocean floor for oil and gas deposits. <i>Id</i>. at 2-3. ION Geophysical Corp. (&ldquo;ION&rdquo;) began selling a competing system that was built from components manufactured in the United States. <i>Id</i>. at 3. The components were shipped by ION to companies abroad, which then assembled the components to create a system that is indistinguishable from --and competes with-- that of WesternGeco. <i>Id</i>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>WesternGeco brought suit against ION alleging patent infringement under &sect; 271(f)(2) of the Patent Act, which prohibits the exporting of components specially adapted to be assembled into a product which would infringe if manufactured domestically. If infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271, WesternGeco would be entitled to damages to compensate for the infringement. 35 U.S.C. &sect; 284.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The District Court for the Southern District of Texas found ION liable, and awarded WesternGeco $93.4 million in damages.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>ION appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that WesternGeco could not recover damages for lost profits because &sect; 271(f) does not apply extraterritorially. Because it had previously held that 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271(a), the general infringement provision, does not allow patent owners to recover for lost foreign sales, the Federal Circuit reasoned that 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271(f) should be interpreted in the same way. Therefore, the Federal Circuit held that WesternGeco was not entitled to damages for lost foreign profits.</div><div><b>&nbsp;</b></div><div>WesternGeco petitioned for review in the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on the question of whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271(f).</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><b>Analysis</b></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The majority opinion authored by Justice Thomas, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan concluded that WesternGeco&rsquo;s award for lost foreign profits &nbsp;attributable to domestic acts of infringement under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271(f)(2) was a permissible domestic application of Section 284. <i>Id</i>. at 9-10. In reaching its conclusion, the Court determined that the &ldquo;focus&rdquo; of Section 284, the patent damages statute, was &ldquo;infringement,&rdquo; and that the infringement at issue --namely the supplying of components -- was domestic.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><b><i>Two-Step Framework</i></b></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Because Congress is said to generally legislate with domestic concerns in mind, and to prevent dispute between our laws and those of other nations, the presumption of the Courts is that federal statutes only &ldquo;apply within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at 4.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for determining questions of extraterritoriality. <i>Id</i>. at 5. First, the Court asks &ldquo;whether the presumption against extraterritoriality has been rebutted.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. To be considered rebutted, the text must provide a &ldquo;clear indication of an extraterritorial application.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. If the presumption against extraterritoriality has not been rebutted, the second step asks &ldquo;whether the case involves a domestic application of the statute.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. This determination is made by identifying the &ldquo;focus&rdquo; of the statute, and asking &ldquo;whether the conduct relevant to that focus occurred in the United States territory.&rdquo; <i>Id. </i>If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then the case involves a permissible domestic application of the statute. <i>Id</i>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>While it is preferable to begin the analysis at step one, courts have discretion to begin with step two in &ldquo;appropriate cases,&rdquo; where addressing step one would require resolving &ldquo;difficult questions&rdquo; that do not change &ldquo;the outcome of the case&rdquo; but could have far-reaching effects in future cases. In this case, the Court decided to exercise the discretion to begin with step two.&nbsp; <i>Id</i>.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The step two requires consideration of the &ldquo;focus&rdquo; of the statutes in determining whether the case involves domestic applications of the statutes. <i>Id</i>. at 6. The Court explained, the &lsquo;&ldquo;focus&rdquo; of a statute is the &lsquo;objec[t] of [its] solicitude,&rsquo; which can include the conduct it &lsquo;seeks to regulate,&rsquo; as well as the parties and interests it &lsquo;seeks to protect[t]&rsquo; or vindicate.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. The case involves permissible domestic application of the statute if the conduct relevant to the statute&rsquo;s focus occurred in the United States. <i>Id</i>. However, regardless of any other conduct that occurred within the United States, if the relevant conduct occurs in another country, the extraterritorial application of the statute is impermissible. <i>Id</i>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><b><i>Application of Framework </i></b></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Applying the above principles to the statutes at issue in the case at hand, the Court concluded that the conduct relevant to the statutory focus in the case was domestic. <i>Id</i>. 35 U.S.C. &sect; 284 provides a general damages remedy for various types of patent infringement, stating that &ldquo;the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. The Court concluded that the focus of this statute was &ldquo;the infringement,&rdquo; as its main purpose is to &ldquo;affor[d] patent owners complete compensation&rdquo; for infringement. <i>Id</i>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Arguments by ION that the focus Section 284 was on the award of damages were rejected. The Court reasoned that while the statute authorizes damages, &ldquo;the damages themselves are merely the means by which the statute achieves its end of remedying infringements.&rdquo; <i>Id.</i> at 8.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>However, the observation that &ldquo;infringement&rdquo; is the focus of Section 284 is not enough to &ldquo;fully resolve this case.&rdquo; <i>Id</i> at 7. To determine the focus of the statute in a specific case, the Court looks to the type of infringement that occurred. <i>Id</i>. at 7. In this case, the Court turned to 35 U.S.C. &sect; 271(f)(2), which was the basis for WesternGeco&rsquo;s infringement claim and the lost-profits damages it received. <i>Id</i>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Court determined that Section 271(f)(2) focuses on domestic conduct, as it regulates the domestic act of &ldquo;supplying&rdquo; in or from the United States. <i>Id</i>. The statute &ldquo;protects against domestic entities who export components from the United States,&rdquo; as it provides:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:.5in;margin-bottom:0in;&#10;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt">[A] company &ldquo;shall be liable as an infringer&rdquo; if it &ldquo;supplies&rdquo; certain components of a patented invention &ldquo;in or from the United States&rdquo; with the intent that they &ldquo;will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>.</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">ION&rsquo;s assertion that the case involves extraterritorial application of Section 284 because the lost-profits damages occurred extraterritorially, and because foreign conduct subsequent to ION&rsquo;s infringement was necessary to give rise to the injury, were rejected. The Court reasoned that the foreign events were merely incidental to the infringement that occurred when ION supplied the components from the United States. <i>Id</i>. at 8.</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div>The Court concluded that the focus of Section 284 in a case involving infringement under Section 271(f)(2) is on the act of exporting components from the United States. <i>Id.</i> at 7. Because it was ION&rsquo;s domestic act of supplying the components that infringed WesternGeco&rsquo;s patent, the lost foreign profits damages that were awarded to WesternGeco was a proper domestic application of Section 284. <i>Id</i>. at 8.</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in"><b>Justice Gorsuch Dissent</b></div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">In a dissenting opinion, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Breyer, agreed that &ldquo;WesterGeco&rsquo;s lost profits claim does not offend the judicially created presumption against the extraterritorial application of statutes.&rdquo; <i>WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.</i>, No. 16-1011, slip op. (U.S. June 22, 2018) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting). However, they argued that the Patent Act does not permit damages awards for lost foreign profits, no matter the presumption against extraterritoriality, and expressed concern that permitting damages for lost foreign sales under U.S. patent law would allow other countries to use their own patent laws to exert control over the U.S. economy. <i>Id</i>. at 1-2.</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">The dissenting opinion concluded that, by assuming a patent owner can recover any lost foreign profit, the Court&rsquo;s majority opinion allows U.S. patent owners to extend their patent monopolies beyond what Congress had authorized under the Patent Act, and shields them from foreign competition. <i>Id</i>. at 9.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-right:.5in"><b>Practical Significance</b></div><div style="margin-right:.5in"><b>&nbsp;</b></div><div style="margin-right:.5in">The Court&rsquo;s holding that a company may could recover damages for lost foreign profits could make overseas damages available in those patent cases where the focus of the infringing conduct is domestic.</div><div style="margin-right:.5in">&nbsp;</div><div>*<a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/alocicero/" target="_blank">Anthony F. Lo Cicero</a> and <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a> are Partners and Chandler Strum is a Law Clerk at Amster, Rothstein and Ebenstein LLP. Their practice specializes in intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes. They may be reached at alocicero@ arelaw.com, cmacedo@arelaw.com and cstrum@arelaw.com.</div> Mon, 25 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert062518/ IP-Watch Inside Views:<br>Rethinking Article III Standing In IPR Appeals At The Federal Circuit (US)<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article061818/ <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2018/06/18/rethinking-article-iii-standing-ipr-appeals-federal-circuit-us/#_edn1" target="_blank">In January 2018, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in&nbsp;<em>RPX Corp. v. Chanbond LLC</em>&nbsp;issued a non-precedential order dismissing an appeal by RPX (as a dissatisfied petitioner) of an adverse final written decision in an&nbsp;<em>inter partes&nbsp;</em>review (&ldquo;IPR&rdquo;) proceeding initiated in response to RPX&rsquo;s petition.&nbsp;In particular, by applying is prior precedential decisions in&nbsp;<em>Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation</em>,&nbsp;and&nbsp;<em>Phigenix Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.</em>,&nbsp;the court concluded &ldquo;that RPX lacks Article III standing to appeal the Board&rsquo;s decision affirming the patentability of claims 1-31 of the &rsquo;822 patent.&rdquo;</a> Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article061818/ Congratulations to Charles Macedo on being named again to IAM Strategy 300 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress061318/ <a href="http://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/Directory/Results.aspx?type=alpha&amp;key=M" target="_blank">The world&rsquo;s pre-eminent IP strategists have been named in the latest edition of IAM Strategy 300</a> &ndash; The World&rsquo;s Leading IP Strategists, published online by IAM and free to access. The unique guide lists the individuals that in-depth research, undertaken by a team based in London, Washington DC and Hong Kong, has shown to possess world-class skills in the development and roll-out of strategies that maximise the value of patents, copyright, trademarks and other IP rights. Wed, 13 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress061318/ IPWatchdog<br>Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article6-12-2018/ <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/06/12/rethinking-article-iii-standing-ipr-appeals-federal-circuit/id=98347/" target="_blank">In 2011, as part of the American Invents Act (&ldquo;AIA&rdquo;), Congress significantly restructured the way in which previously issued patents could be challenged.&nbsp;&nbsp; In some cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like <em>ex parte</em> reexamination and reissue proceedings, were kept intact as such proceedings existed prior to the AIA.&nbsp; In other cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like <em>inter partes</em> reexamination, were replaced with new proceedings, such as the <em>inter partes </em>review proceedings (&ldquo;IPRs&rdquo;).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In addition, brand new proceedings were created, such as post-grant review proceedings (&ldquo;PGRs&rdquo;), covered business method patent review proceedings (&ldquo;CBMs&rdquo;), and supplemental examination proceedings. &nbsp;In each instance, Congress made policy choices as to who could (or could not) bring and/or participate in such proceedings, and who could (or could not) raise challenges to decisions made by the government in such proceedings.&nbsp; <em>See SAS Instit. v. Iancu</em>, 584 U.S. ___ (slip op. at 6) (2018) (confirming different structure of reexamination proceedings and IPRs, and recognizing Congressional &ldquo;structural&rdquo; choices are deserving of deference; &ldquo;Congress&rsquo;s choice to depart from the model of a closely related statute is a choice neither we nor the agency may disregard.&rdquo;).</a> Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article6-12-2018/ Patent Quality Initiative News<br>Rethinking Article III Standing in IPR Appeals at the Federal Circuit<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article061218/ <div><div><a href="http://www.patentqualityinitiative.com/-/media/pqi/files/articles/rethinking-article-iii-standing-in-ipr-appeals.pdf" target="_blank">In 2011, as part of the American Invents Act (&ldquo;AIA&rdquo;), Congress significantly restructured the way in which previously issued patents could be challenged.&nbsp;In some cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like <i>ex parte</i> reexamination and reissue proceedings, were kept intact as such proceedings existed prior to the AIA.&nbsp;In other cases, existing post-issuance proceedings, like <i>inter partes</i> reexamination, were replaced with new proceedings, such as the <i>inter partes </i>review proceedings (&ldquo;IPRs&rdquo;).&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; In addition, brand new proceedings were created, such as post-grant review proceedings (&ldquo;PGRs&rdquo;), covered business method patent review proceedings (&ldquo;CBMs&rdquo;), and supplemental examination proceedings. In each instance, Congress made policy choices as to who could (or could not) bring and/or participate in such proceedings, and who could (or could not) raise challenges to decisions made by the government in such proceedings.&nbsp;<i>See SAS Instit. v. Iancu</i>, 584 U.S. ___ (slip op. at 6) (2018) (confirming different structure of reexamination proceedings and IPRs, and recognizing Congressional &ldquo;structural&rdquo; choices are deserving of deference; &ldquo;Congress&rsquo;s choice to depart from the model of a closely related statute is a choice neither we nor the agency may disregard.&rdquo;).</a></div></div> Mon, 11 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article061218/ ARE Patent Law Alert:<br>Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc and Confirms Patent Eligibility Relies Upon Factual Determinations<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert06042018/ <div>On May 31, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied petitions for rehearing<i> en banc</i> in both <i>Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.,</i> 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018)and <i>Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,</i> 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), with concurrences by Judge Moore and Judge Lourie, and a dissent by Judge Reyna. In parallel <i>en banc </i>requests, HP and Green Shades had raised similar questions as to whether the &ldquo;threshold inquiry of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101 is a question of law without underlying factual issues&rdquo; that would avoid dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion or may prevent summary judgment.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Berkheimer</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>By way of background, on February 8, 2018, the Federal Circuit in <i>Berkheimer, </i>a three-judge panel in an opinion written by Judge Moore overturned a grant of summary judgment of patent ineligibility after determining that fundamental aspects of a patent eligibility analysis are based upon questions of fact.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>After the Supreme Court&rsquo;s <i>Alice </i>decision in 2014, to determine a patent&rsquo;s eligibility, courts were instructed to determine whether a patent claims abstract ideas, laws of nature or natural phenomena. If answered in the affirmative, the elements of each claim, individually or combined, are considered to determine whether they &ldquo;transform the nature of the claim&rdquo; into a patent-eligible invention. 881 F.3dat 1367. This is satisfied when the claim limitations &ldquo;involved more than performance of &lsquo;well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry.&rdquo; <i>Id.</i> Therefore, <i>Berkheimer </i>held that, although patent eligibility is ultimately a question of law, it may require an analysis of underlying factual questions, as the question of whether a claim element is &ldquo;well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at 1368. Since there was a factual dispute regarding specific claims as to whether they described well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, the Court vacated the summary judgment that had found the claims to be patent ineligible. <i>Id</i>. at 1369.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Aatrix</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Similarly, on February 14, 2018, another 3-judge panel of the Court issued a split decision in <i>Aatrix Software,</i> finding that factual questions precluded dismissal of the complaint on patent eligibility grounds. The majority decision, also authored by Judge Moore vacated the &sect; 101 invalidity dismissal because the patent owner&rsquo;s proposed amended complaint adequately alleged that the claims contained an inventive concept and did not solely describe a &ldquo;well-understood, routine and conventional activity.&rdquo; 882 F.3d at 1129. Therefore, since there were factual allegations in the second amended complaint, which when accepted as true, prevent dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court had erred in dismissing the initial complaint without granting the patent owner leave to amend. <i>Id.</i> &nbsp;&nbsp;In a concurring and dissenting opinion by Judge Reyna, as pertinent here, he dissented with respect to &ldquo;t<span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">he majority's broad statements on the role of factual evidence in a &sect; 101 inquiry. Our precedent is clear that the &sect; 101 inquiry is a legal question.&nbsp;</span><i>See&nbsp;</i><i><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,</span></i><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In a manner contrary to that standard, the majority opinion attempts to shoehorn a significant factual component into the&nbsp;</span><i>Alice</i><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">&nbsp;&sect; 101 analysis.&rdquo; <i>&nbsp;Id</i>. at 1130.</span></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>The Petitions for Rehearing</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>The losing defendants in both <i>Berkheimer</i> and <i>Aatrix </i>sought rehearing en banc to address similar questions.</div> <div><br />The two questions raised by HP Inc. in <i>Berkheimer </i>were:<br /><br /><div style="margin-left: 40px;">1.&nbsp;Is the threshold inquiry of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101 a question of law without underlying factual issues that might prevent summary judgment?</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div style="margin-left: 40px;">2.&nbsp;Is the appropriate inquiry under&nbsp;<i>Alice&nbsp;</i>step 2 whether the claims transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, or merely &ldquo;whether the invention describes well-understood, routine and conventional activities&rdquo;?</div></div> <div><br />Similarly, Green Shades Software, Inc., the patent challenger in Aatrix, raised the following question:<br />Is the threshold inquiry of patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. &sect; 101 a question of law without underlying factual issues based on complaint allegations pled to avoid dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)?<br />&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>The Per Curiam Orders Denying The Petitions</u></b></div> <div><b><u>&nbsp;</u></b></div> <div>In both <i>Berkheimer</i> and <i>Aatrix</i>, the Court issued a short <i>per curiam</i> order denying each petition for rehearing, rehearing en banc and ordered a date for the mandate to issue.&nbsp;Each order was accompanied by three decisions which offer insight into the current court&rsquo;s view on the role of fact finding in the context of patent-eligibility rulings.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Judge Moore&rsquo;s Concurrence, joined by Judges Dyk, O&rsquo;Malley, Taranto and Stoll</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Judge Moore (the author of <i>Berkheimer</i> and the majority in <i>Aatrix</i>) issued a concurring opinion, which was joined by Judges Dyk, O&rsquo;Malley, Taranto and Stoll to reinforce her original decision.&nbsp;Judge Moore&rsquo;s concurrence observed, &ldquo;<i>Berkheimer</i> and <i>Aatrix</i> stand for the unremarkable proposition that whether a claim element or combination of elements would have been well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field at a particular point in time is a question of fact.&rdquo;&nbsp;<i>Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.</i>, No. 2017-1452, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14395, at *2; <i>Berkheimer v. HP Inc.</i>, No. 2017-1437, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14388, at *3.[1]Thus, while the ultimate question of patent eligibility is one of law, it may contain underlying issues of fact, which may require &ldquo;weighing evidence to determine whether the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature would have been well-understood, routine, and conventional.&rdquo; <i>Id. </i>at *3-4.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In support of this conclusion, Judge Moore&rsquo;s concurrence explains that as a factual question, normal procedural standards for fact questions must apply, and that the Court is &ldquo;not free to create specialized rules for patent law that contradict well-established, general legal principles.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>.at *5. Therefore, &ldquo;if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, Rule 56 requires that summary judgment be denied.&rdquo; <i>Id. </i>at *5. &nbsp;Thus, if patent eligibility is challenged in a motion to dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the standard consistently applied in all other areas of law must also be applied here. <i>Id. </i>at *7. In other words, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim must be denied if &ldquo;in the light most favorable to the plaintiff...the complaint states any legally cognizable claim for relief.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at *7-8.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Ultimately, as found by the panels, Judge Moore&rsquo;s concurrence concludes, whether a claim element is well-understood, routine and conventional is a question of fact, and <i>Berkheimer </i>and <i>Aatrix</i> &ldquo;merely hold that it must be answered under the normal procedural standards, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure standards for motions to dismiss or summary judgment and the Federal Rules of Evidence standards for admissions and judicial notice.&rdquo; <i>Id</i>. at *12-13.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Judge Lourie Concurrence, joined by Judge Newman</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>In a concurrence by Judge Lourie, and joined by Judge Newman, Judge Lourie explains his belief that &ldquo;the law needs clarification by higher authority...to work its way out of what so many in the innovation field consider are &sect; 101 problems.&rdquo; <i>Id.</i> at *13. Judge Lourie&rsquo;s concurrence stated that, &ldquo;even if it was decided wrongly...it would not work us out of the current &sect; 101 dilemma,&rdquo; as expresses his views the problem as stemming from the 2-step &ldquo;inventive concept&rdquo;&nbsp;patent eligibility analysis as set out in <i>Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc</i>. Thus, he asserts that resolution of patent eligibility issues require higher intervention. <i>Id</i>. at *15, *18-19.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Judge Reyna Dissent</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Judge Reyna, in dissent, argued that the <i>Aatrix </i>and <i>Berkheimer </i>decisions significantly alter the &sect; 101 analysis &ldquo;by presenting patent eligibility under &sect; 101 as predominantly a question of fact&rdquo; and offer no guidance to the questions they raise. <i>Id</i>. at *20, *33-34.&nbsp;Thus, he views that the inaction taken by denying the petitions has prevented the Court &ldquo;from exploring the important questions&rdquo; raised by both parties in their respective petitions for rehearing <i>en banc</i>. <i>Id</i>. at *33.&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><b><u>Practical Significance</u></b></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>For now, at least five members of the Court have endorsed the proposition that even though patent-eligibility may be a question of law, it may turn on underlying factual determinations which may not be summarily decided.&nbsp;&nbsp;While clearly at least Judge Reyna disagrees, he was unable to garner support from any of the remaining members of the Court (Chief Judge Prost, or Judges Wallach, Chen or Hughes), at least this time around.&nbsp;We can expect that Patent Office and lower courts to continue to apply <i>Berkheimer</i> and <i>Aatrix </i>for the foreseeable future.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>It will be interesting to see how whether Congress or the Supreme Court will answer Judge Lourie&rsquo;s pleas to a &ldquo;higher authority&rdquo; to reconsider the law of patent-eligibility.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>We will continue to monitor the law of patent-eligibility.&nbsp;In the meantime, please feel free to contact one of our attorneys regarding the issues raised in this case.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;<span style="font-size:8.5pt;Verdana">* <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a> is a Partner and Chandler Sturm is a Law Clerk at <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/" target="_blank">Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP</a>.&nbsp;Their practice focuses on all facets of the intellectual property law, including patent, trademark and copyright.&nbsp;Mr. Macedo may be contacted at&nbsp;</span><a href="mailto:cmacedo@arelaw.com"><span style="font-size: 8.5pt; background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">cmacedo@arelaw.com</span></a><span style="font-size:8.5pt;Verdana">.</span></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><div id="ftn1"><div>[1] Given the similarity in questions raised, identical opinions were filed in response to the Aatrix&nbsp;and Berkheimer petitions for rehearing en banc. All following citations refer to <i>Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc.</i>, No. 2017-1452, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 14395 (Fed. Cir. May 31, 2018).</div></div></div><div><div id="ftn1"><div>&nbsp;</div></div></div> Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/alert06042018/ In The Press:<br>Askeladden LLC Submits Another Amicus Brief Advocating Against Tribal Sovereign Immunity for PTAB Proceedings<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress052218/ <p><strong>IPWatchdog reports</strong> -- <a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/22/askeladden-submits-amicus-brief-advocating-against-tribal-sovereign-immunity/id=97539/" target="_blank">Askeladden again submitted an amicus brief to the Federal Circuit on May 17, 2018 supporting the PTAB&rsquo;s decision below</a>.<br /><br />A copy of that amicus brief&nbsp;<a href="http://www.patentqualityinitiative.com/-/media/pqi/files/amicus-briefs/table/st-regis-v-mylan--askeladden-amicus-brief.pdf?la=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener">is available here</a>.<span style="font-size: small;"><br /><br /></span>Askeladden is represented by Amster Rothstein and Ebenstein LLP.</p> Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress052218/ Practical Law:<br>Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decisions<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw050218/ <div><strong>REVISED&nbsp; May 21, 2018 --</strong>&nbsp;<a href="/images/file/Appealing%20Patent%20Trial%20and%20Appeal%20Board%20Final%20Written%20Decisions%20052118.pdf" target="_blank">Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal&nbsp;Board Final Written Decisions</a></div> Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw050218/ Practical Law:<br>Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR, and CBM Proceedings<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw050118/ <strong>REVISED&nbsp; May 21, 2018 --&nbsp;</strong><a href="/images/file/Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials-%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings.pdf" target="_blank">Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR, and CBM Proceedings</a> Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/practicallaw050118/ In The Press:<br> Askeladden Advocates against Tribal Sovereign Immunity for Inter Partes Review Proceedings<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress05212018/ Patent Quality Initiative reports on Amicus brief&nbsp;finding tribal sovereign immunity inapplicable to inter partes review (IPR)<br /><br />Askeladden is represented by Amster Rothstein and Ebenstein LLP.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.patentqualityinitiative.com/news/press-releases/news-items/tribal-sovereign-immunity-release" target="_blank">Available Here.</a><br type="_moz" /> Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress05212018/ In The Press: <br>IPLaw360 Reports on Federal Circuit Asking Google to Respond to Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc<br> http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress5212018/ <div><em><span style="font-size: 9pt;">IP</span></em><em>&nbsp;Law360</em>,&nbsp;<em><span style="font-size: 9pt;">May 21, 2018</span></em></div><div><span style="font-size: 9pt;"> <br /> <span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Fed. Circ. Asks Google Whether Full Court Should Eye Patents<br /><br />Law360 Reports on Federal Circuit Asking Google to Respond to Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">Law360 reported on The Federal Circuit on Friday asked Google to weigh in on a patent licensing company&rsquo;s request for the entire court to review whether a panel erred in holding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board goofed on its construction of a claim term included in several media search patents challenged by the tech giant.</span></span></div> <div align="center" style="text-align:center"><hr size="3" width="100%" noshade="" align="center" /></div> <div><span style=" font-size: 9pt;">Network-1 is represented by <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo</a> and <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/jhahm/" target="_blank">Jung S. Hahm</a> of <a href="https://www.arelaw.com/" target="_blank">Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP</a>, and Gregory S. Dovel and Sean Luner of <a href="https://www.dovel.com/" target="_blank">Dovel &amp; Luner LLP</a>.<br /><br type="_moz" /></span></div><div><span style=" font-size: 9pt;"><a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1045358/fed-circ-asks-google-whether-full-court-should-eye-patents" target="_blank">Click here to read the full article</a>. (subscription required)</span></div> Mon, 21 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/inthepress5212018/ Brief for Amicus Curiae Askeladden L.L.C. in Support of Appellees http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/amicus05172018/ Click to download PDF:&nbsp;<a href="/images/file/Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Askeladden%20-%20Saint%20Regis%20Mohawk%20Tribe%20v_%20Mylan%20Pharmaceuticals%20Inc_.pdf" target="_blank">Brief for Amicus Curiae Askeladden L.L.C. in Support of Appelleee&nbsp;<a href="/images/file/Amicus%20Brief%20-%20Askeladden%20-%20Saint%20Regis%20Mohawk%20Tribe%20v_%20Mylan%20Pharmaceuticals%20Inc_.pdf" target="_blank"><div style="display: inline !important;">&nbsp;in <i>St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. </i>Nos. 2018-1638, -1639, -1640, -1641, -1642, 1643 (Fed. Cir. filed May 18, 2018)</div></a></a> Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/amicus05172018/ IP Watchdog<br>Federal Circuit Asked to Reconsider IPR Ruling in Context of Database Search Algorithms http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article051118/ <div><a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/author/charmac/"><img border="0" id="_x0000_i1025" src="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/pic_cmacedo-80x100.jpg" scale="0" alt="" /></a></div> <div><a href="https://www.arelaw.com/professional/cmacedo/" target="_blank">Charles R. Macedo<br /></a>Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP</div><div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>IP Watchdog reports -- On May 9, 2018, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, requesting reconsideration of the panel&rsquo;s decision in context of database search algorithms in a consolidated appeal from&nbsp;<em>inter partes</em>&nbsp;review decisions relating to four of Network-1&rsquo;s patents.&nbsp; Gregory S. Dovel and Sean Luner of Dovel &amp; Luner, LLP, and Charles R. Macedo and Jung S. Hahm of Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP were authors on the brief.<br /><br />For the full article, please see&nbsp;<a href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/10/federal-circuit-asked-reconsider-ipr-ruling-context-database-search-algorithms/id=97077/" target="_blank">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/10/federal-circuit-asked-reconsider-ipr-ruling-context-database-search-algorithms/id=97077/</a>&nbsp;</div> Fri, 11 May 2018 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.arelaw.com/publications/view/article051118/