Why FRAND Commitments are Not (usually) Contracts

Guest Post by Professor Jorge L. Contreras There has been a fair amount of controversy recently over commitments that patent holders make to license patents on terms that are “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (FRAND).  As I have previously written here and here, FRAND commitments generally arise when a patent holder wishes to assure the marketplace […]
Read the full story here: Patently-O » Patent

Section 101 Invalidates Another Financial Services Patent

In what is beginning to look like a deluge, another district court has invalidated a set of asserted patents as lacking eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. (2014). Every Penny Counts (EPC) v. Wells Fargo Bank (M.D. Fla. September 2014) EveryPennyCounts101 EPC’s invention is a computerized method for rounding-up credit and […]
Read the full story here: Patently-O » Patent

Nice Summary of the 101-based “Invalidity” War on Software Patents

Dennis has provided detailed analyses of most of these cases; this article entitled “Software Patents are Crumbling Thanks to the Supreme Court, provides a nice high-level overview, including a very telling chart, summarized thus: The 14 patents the courts invalidated on subject matter grounds in 2013 was a record for recent years (such decisions were rare […]
Read the full story here: Patently-O » Patent

USPTO Proposed Rules for Transparency of Patent Ownership

In January 2014, the USPTO published proposed rules to increase the transparency of patent ownership information for patent applications and issued patents, which the USPTO termed “attributable ownership proposed rules” as a shorthand title. You can review our attributable ownership proposed rules here. The proposed changes to the rules of practice will require that the attributable owner, […]

Read the full story here: Patent Baristas

PGR Report — The Attack of 35 U.S.C. § 112

By Andrew Williams — Last week, on September 2, 2014, Accord Healthcare, Inc. (“Accord”) filed what appears to be the second-ever Post-Grant Review (“PGR”) (see Petition). This PGR was for U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (“the ’219 Patent”), which is jointly assigned to Helsinn Healthcare S.A. and Roche Palo Alto, LLC (collectively “Helsinn”). As a reminder, PGRs are the third type of post-issuance review procedures established by the America Invents Act (“AIA”) — the other two being Inter Partes Review and Covered Business Method Patent Review (IPR and CBM, for short). However, the reason that only one other PGR has been…
Read the full story here: Patent Docs

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes