News & Resources
U.S. House of Representatives Panel to Investigate Abuse of U.S. Patent And Trademark Office Telework Program
Posted on Aug 26, 2014 in Blog
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s “telework” program came under fire when news emerged, first reported in an August 10, 2014 Washington Post article, that oversight of patent examiners who work from home at various locations around the country was “completely ineffective.”
Read MoreResounding Victory in New Jersey Follows Successful Transfer of Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Litigation from Ohio
Posted on Aug 8, 2014 in News
A New Jersey federal judge on August 6, 2014 rejected Roxane Laboratories, Inc.’s bid for a preliminary injunction in its patent suit over Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s generic calcium acetate capsule product, which is used in the treatment of hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease.
Read MoreCRBCP Adds Office and Litigator in Wilmington, Delaware
Posted on Jul 29, 2014 in News
CRBCP is pleased to announce that it has opened a Wilmington, Delaware office. The office will focus on litigation in the State and Federal Courts of Delaware, with a particular emphasis on intellectual property and commercial litigation.
Read MoreBalancing Claim Language Requirements in Nautilus Case
Posted on Jul 2, 2014 in Articles
When legal principles are at odds with each other, it can be immensely difficult to reach a conclusion that is fair and just. Such is the dilemma in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments, 572 U.S. _______ (2014). The case has been talked about for months, and seen by some as a possible major step forward in the “war” against “patent trolls.”
Read MorePreliminary Examination Guidelines for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility
Posted on Jul 1, 2014 in Blog
Last month, we blogged about the recent Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, U.S., No. 13-298, 6/19/14. In view of that decision, on June 25, 2014 the PTO issued preliminary instructions for use when determining subject matter eligibility of claims involving abstract ideas (e.g., computer-implemented abstract ideas) under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Read MoreCRBCP Wins Motion to Transfer to NJ
Posted on Jun 27, 2014 in News
Congratulations to Robert Silver on the successful motion to transfer the case of Roxane v. InvaGen from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court of New Jersey.
Read MoreBMI Awarded $35K Plus Counsel Fees for Copyright Infringement
Posted on Jun 27, 2014 in News
Congratulations to Stanley Cohen on this week’s victories in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of our client BMI, a leader in music rights management. We received notification yesterday that Judge Michael M. Baylson awarded BMI $7,000 per count of copyright infringement, for a total of $35,000, which is precisely what Stan requested in his motions, plus 100% of the requested counsel fees.
Read MoreThe Washington Redskins May Have Lost the Battle …
Posted on Jun 25, 2014 in Blog
On June 19, 2014, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (PTO TTAB) canceled six trademark registrations owned by the Washington NFL club, ruling that the term “Redskins” was disparaging to a substantial composite of American Indians when the marks were granted between 1967 and 1990.
Read MoreSupreme Court Confirms That Tranforming Abstract Idea into a Patent-Eligible Invention Requires More Than Mere Recitation in Claims of Generic Computer
Posted on Jun 24, 2014 in Blog
On June 19, 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the claims in several patents for software to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties using a computer system as a third-party intermediary are invalid as claiming patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U. S. C. §101.
Read MoreSupreme Court Changes Standard for Patent Indefiniteness under 35 USC 112 ¶2
Posted on Jun 2, 2014 in Blog
On June 2, 2014, the US Supreme Court rejected as imprecise the Federal Circuit’s existing standard for patent claims indefiniteness under 35 USC 112 ¶2.
Read More