Free Consultation 215.567.2010

News & Resources

Injunction for Patent Infringement in the Smartphone War

Posted on Oct 28, 2015 in Articles

The standard for granting an injunction in a patent infringement case may have changed last month in Apple v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2014-1802 (Fed. Cir. September 17, 2015) (Apple IV). In this important decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit carefully evaluated the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case eBay v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), and made it easier for plaintiffs to obtain an injunction for patent infringement.

Read More

CR Attorney Elected President of Jenkins Law Library

Posted on Sep 25, 2015 in News

The firm congratulates Manny Pokotilow on his election as President of the Jenkins Law Library.

Read More

Recycled Ink Cartridges and Issue of Patent Exhaustion

Posted on Sep 23, 2015 in Articles

“The palest ink is better than the best memory,” according to a Chinese proverb. Perhaps, but an important case that is set to go to oral argument next month might decide how much you will pay for that ink from recycled ink cartridges. In Lexmark International v. Impression Products, No. 14-1617 (which is currently being argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit), Lexmark International Inc. seeks to control who can recycle and resell Lexmark ink cartridges. And what is the issue being litigated? Patent exhaustion.

Read More

Supreme Court’s Decision in Nautilus Costs Dow Chemical Co. $30 Million in Unrelated Litigation

Posted on Sep 4, 2015 in Blog

Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) sued NOVA Chemicals Inc. (“NOVA”) for infringement of the claims of two U.S. Patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,847,053 and 6,111,023). The Delaware District Court found the claims to be infringed and not invalid. This decision was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit, which held, inter alia, that the asserted claims were not indefinite.

Read More

Initial Interest Confusion in Trademark Case Against Amazon

Posted on Aug 26, 2015 in Articles

Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and John Belushi are working in a restaurant. Jane Curtin walks in and orders two cheeseburgers. Belushi yells at the cook, “Cheezborger, cheezborger.” Curtin then orders a Coke. Belushi responds, “No Coke. Pepsi.” The scene is one of the classics from “Saturday Night Live,” and it is also how Judge Barry Silverman begins his dissent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Multi Time Machine v. Amazon.com, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11554 (9th Cir. Cal. July 6, 2015).

Read More

Intellectual Property of the Biggest Trade Deal in History

Posted on Jul 22, 2015 in Articles

TPP. TPA. TAA. It’s been a figurative “alphabet soup” of names for international trade legislation that has recently been in the news.

Read More

Caesar Rivise’s Claim Construction Prevails in Markman Decision of NJ District Court

Posted on Jul 17, 2015 in News

In a July 15, 2015 Markman decision, U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler reaffirmed his preliminary claim construction that “size 00 or less” in U.S. Patent No. 8,563,032 means “precisely size 00 or less” capsule, excluding the larger size 00el capsule.

Read More

What Changes After Fed. Circ.’s Williamson Decision

Posted on Jul 10, 2015 in Articles

When the Federal Circuit issued the en banc decision in Williamson v. Citrix [1], the court changed the guidelines regarding the adjudication of patent claims with functional claim language. Many blogs, articles and newsfeeds embraced the decision as yet another positive step towards curbing frivolous litigation based on overly broad software patents. Only time will tell if Williamson accomplishes that goal. The decision, however, is interesting because it refines an important test for interpreting functional claim language, while at the same time it preserves aspects of the precedent.

Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms Rule Precluding Post-Expiration Patent Royalty Payments

Posted on Jun 29, 2015 in Blog

In 1991, Kimble patented a toy glove that enabled a user to shoot a pressurized string from it. Kimble attempted to sell or license the patent to Marvel Entertainment for Marvel’s Spider-Man character. Marvel declined. However, Marvel started to sell a toy which Kimble alleged infringed the patent, so Kimble brought suit for infringement of its patent.

Read More

When ‘No Means’ Means ‘Means’ in Functional Claim Language

Posted on Jun 24, 2015 in Articles

The preferred patent claim strikes a very fine line. When patent claims are broad, with fewer words, it is easier to find that they have been infringed. When claims are too broad, however, they may fail to meet the statutory requirements of patentability, for they may then fail to distinguish over the prior art (i.e., that which was already known before the patent was applied for). One way that patent attorneys draft broad claims, while at the same time differentiating over that which is already in the public realm, is to use something called functional claiming. Simply put, instead of writing a patent claim that describes what something is, a functional claim describes what something does (and hence the function that is performed).

Read More

Philadelphia

1635 Market Street, 12th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2212

215-567-2010 | 215-751-1142

View Map

Delaware

King Street Plaza - Suite 304. 800 N. King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801

302-544-9100 | 302-544-9103

View Map

Lehigh Valley

2030 Tilghman Street, Suite 201A
Allentown, Pennsylvania 18104-4399

610-255-7551 | 610-255-7542

View Map