Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Jake B. Vallen
Equivalents still requires all elements be met, injunctive relief still governed by eBay factors | JD Supra
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for each and every claim element, and that a grant of injunctive relief requires proof of all eBay factors. On the issue of willfulness, the panel majority held that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was a reversable error. Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co., Inc., Case Nos.
Equivalents Still Requires All Elements be Met, Injunctive Relief Still Governed by eBay Factors
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a mixed ruling in a dispute over patents covering child car seat technology, explaining that infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires an equivalent for each and every claim element, and that a grant of injunctive relief requires proof of all eBay factors. On the issue of willfulness, the panel majority held that the exclusion of exculpatory evidence was a reversable error. Wonderland Switzerland AG v. Evenflo Co., Inc., Case Nos.
PTO Proposes New Guidelines for Director Review in Board Proceedings | JD Supra
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed new rules governing the process for Director review of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26,807 (proposed Apr. 16, 2024) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
Aid Package Signed by President Biden Includes Divestiture of TikTok Requirement
President Biden signed a historical aid package into law on Tuesday that includes aid for Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-Pacific region.
Privacy Tip #395 – GM Faces Class Action for Collecting + Disclosing Drivers’ Data Without Consent
Car manufacturer General Motors (GM) is the subject of litigation in Georgia by two New Jersey Chevy Bolt drivers who allege that GM collected data about their driving habits and behavior and disclosed it to third parties, including insurance companies, causing them to pay higher insurance rates and experience difficulty in obtaining reasonable premiums. They allege that they did not agree to the collection and disclosure and that it was a breach of contract and their privacy.
PTO Proposes New Guidelines for Director Review in Board Proceedings
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed new rules governing the process for Director review of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26,807 (proposed Apr. 16, 2024) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
PTO Proposes New Guidelines for Director Review in Board Proceedings
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) proposed new rules governing the process for Director review of Patent Trial & Appeal Board decisions in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings. Rules Governing Director Review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 89 Fed. Reg. 26,807 (proposed Apr. 16, 2024) (to be codified at 37 C.F.R. pt. 42).
Biden Administration Enlists Public in Effort to Identify Potential Antitrust Violations in Healthcare Sector
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently announced the launch of “an easily accessible online portal for the public to report health care practices that may harm competition.” The portal provides the public an opportunity to report “potentially unfair and anticompetitive health care practices” to antitrust enforcers.
Specially Convened Rehearing Panel Vacates IPR Institution Denial | JD Supra
In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified the claim construction to account for a “clear and unmistakable” prosecution history disclaimer, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified claim construction. SynAffix B.V. v. Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., No. IPR2022-01531, Paper 23 (PTAB Mar.
Specially Convened Rehearing Panel Vacates IPR Institution Denial
In a rehearing decision issued by a Delegated Rehearing Panel specially convened by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board vacated a prior panel decision denying institution, modified the claim construction to account for a “clear and unmistakable” prosecution history disclaimer, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified claim construction. SynAffix B.V. v. Hangzhou DAC Biotech Co., Ltd., No. IPR2022-01531, Paper 23 (PTAB Mar.
Same Applicant, Similar Claims Support Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection | JD Supra
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known compound nonobvious. In re: Institut Pasteur, Case No. 22-1896 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (Taranto, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.) (nonprecedential).
Same Applicant, Similar Claims Support Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejection
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness-type double patenting rejection, finding that an unexpected mechanism of action does not render the known use of a known compound nonobvious. In re: Institut Pasteur, Case No. 22-1896 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2023) (Taranto, Clevenger, Stoll, JJ.) (nonprecedential).
Store This Element: Lexicography Controls Claim Term Definition Over Plain and Ordinary Meaning | JD Supra
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, determining that the Board properly applied the patentee’s lexicography in construing a disputed claim term and properly treated arguments raised by the parties in the reply and sur-reply briefings. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal, Case No. 22-1548 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2023) (Prost, Wallach, Chen, JJ.) Intel filed a petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by ParkerVision.
Store This Element: Lexicography Controls Claim Term Definition Over Plain and Ordinary Meaning
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial & Appeal Board obviousness finding, determining that the Board properly applied the patentee’s lexicography in construing a disputed claim term and properly treated arguments raised by the parties in the reply and sur-reply briefings. ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal, Case No. 22-1548 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2023) (Prost, Wallach, Chen, JJ.) Intel filed a petition for inter partes review of a patent owned by ParkerVision.
Delay Is Okay: Final Written Decisions Can Be Issued After Statutory Deadline
In a matter of first impression, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board has the authority to issue a final written decision (FWD) in a post-grant review (PGR) proceeding after the statutory deadline has passed. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., Case No. 22-1482 (Fed. Cir. Nov.
Standard Practice: The Public Has Right to Copyrighted Material Incorporated Into Law
In a case that attracted a slew of amicus curiae participation and was the most recent in the series of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) copyright cases, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the noncommercial dissemination of standards, as incorporated by reference into law, constitutes fair use and thus does not support liability for copyright infringement. Am. Soc’y for Testing & Materials v.
The End Is Not So Near: Patent Term Adjustments Count in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Determinations
Thursday, September 7, 2023 Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to PTAs, the earlier expiring family members can be used as a basis for an ODP invalidity challenge against the later expiring family members. In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug.
The End Is Not So Near: Patent Term Adjustments Count in Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Determinations | JD Supra
Addressing for the first time how patent term adjustments (PTAs) interact with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that when members of a patent family have different expiration dates due to PTAs, the earlier expiring family members can be used as a basis for an ODP invalidity challenge against the later expiring family members. In re Cellect, LLC, Case Nos. 2022-1293; -1294; -1295; -1296 (Fed. Cir. Aug.
Jake B. Vallen Attorney McDermott Will and Emery Intellectual Property
Jake B. Vallen focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation matters. While earning his law degree, Jake served as executive editor of the New York Law School Law Review, a teaching assistant for Academic Success Initiatives and a member of the Dean’s Leadership Council. Jake is a recipient of the Roger J. Miner Award for Outstanding Editorial Contribution to the New York Law School Law Review and Dean’s Award for Student Leadership.
No Snipe Hunting: AIA Adherence Means No Interference (Proceedings)
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that patents and applications that have only ever contained claims with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013—i.e., pure America Invents Act (AIA) patents—may not be subjected to an interference proceeding by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director. SNIPR Techs. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., Case No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir.
No Snipe Hunting: AIA Adherence Means No Interference (Proceedings) | JD Supra
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that patents and applications that have only ever contained claims with an effective filing date after March 16, 2013—i.e., pure America Invents Act (AIA) patents—may not be subjected to an interference proceeding by the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) Director. SNIPR Techs. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., Case No. 2022-1260 (Fed. Cir.
Double Jeopardy Doesn’t Attach to Venue and Vicinage Clause Violations
The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial of a criminal defendant who was prosecuted in an improper venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Smith v. United States, Case No. 21-1576 (Sup.
Double Jeopardy Doesn’t Attach to Venue and Vicinage Clause Violations | JD Supra
The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause does not preclude retrial of a criminal defendant who was prosecuted in an improper venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong district. Smith v. United States, Case No. 21-1576 (Sup.
Successful MLBPA trademark suit shines spotlight on priority of use and likelihood of confusion
In Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v Chisena (Opps 91240180, 91242556 and 91243244; 12 April 2023), the TTAB has affirmed the rejection of three trademark applications, finding that the applied-for marks would cause confusion with a record-setting Major League Baseball (MLB) player.
Strike 1: priority. Strike 2: likelihood of confusion. Strike 3: you’re out under Section 2(d)
Shutterstock/Billion Photos United States of America Legal updates: case law analysis and intelligence The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found that trademark applications for ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE would cause confusion with Major League baseball player Aaron Judge. Register for limited access Register to receive our newsletter and gain limited access to subscriber content.
Strike 1: Priority. Strike 2 :Likelihood of Confusion. Strike 3: You’re Out under Section 2(d).
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of three trademark applications, finding that the applied-for marks would cause confusion with a record-setting major league baseball player. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, Opp. Nos. 91240180; 91242556; 91243244 (TTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (Cataldo, Heasley, Larkin, ATJ.) (precedential). Michael P.
Strike 1: Priority. Strike 2 :Likelihood of Confusion. Strike 3: You’re Out under Section 2(d). | JD Supra
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of three trademark applications, finding that the applied-for marks would cause confusion with a record-setting major league baseball player. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, Opp. Nos. 91240180; 91242556; 91243244 (TTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (Cataldo, Heasley, Larkin, ATJ.) (precedential). Michael P.
Strike 1: Priority. Strike 2 :Likelihood of Confusion. Strike 3: You’re Out under Section 2(d).
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board affirmed the rejection of three trademark applications, finding that the applied-for marks would cause confusion with a record-setting major league baseball player. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, Opp. Nos. 91240180; 91242556; 91243244 (TTAB Apr. 12, 2023) (Cataldo, Heasley, Larkin, ATJ.) (precedential). Michael P.
Disclaiming Claim Scope: Could the Patentee Have Anticipated This?
In the most recent decision in the , the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a remand ruling from the Patent Trial & Appeal Board finding the challenged claims of VirnetX’s patents unpatentable. VirnetX Inc. v. Mangrove Partners Master Fund, Ltd., Case No. 2020-2271 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2023) (Moore, C.J.; Hughes, Stark, JJ.) (nonprecedential).
Prior Art Coherency and Cache Incoherency: “Known-Technique” Rationale for Motivation to Combine
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, addressing the issue of whether certain factual and legal conclusions relating to obviousness were supported by substantial evidence, held that the Patent Trial & Appeal Board improperly rejected evidence of “known-technique” rationale to provide a motivation to combine. Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, Case No. 22-1037 (Fed. Cir. Mar.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Jake B.
Contact Jake B., search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack