In a move that could have major implications for patent litigation in the Northern District of California as well as every other District, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to take up the issue of whether inter partes reviews and certain other America Invents Act proceedings are unconstitutional because they can result in invalidation of a patent without a jury trial. We invite you to read a full account, written by our colleague Don Daybell, on Orrick’s website here.
Posts by: Editorial Board
Patent litigants in the Northern District of California will have something new to argue over following the Court’s approval in January of Patent Local Rule amendments that impose damages-related disclosure requirements. The Court also tweaked a few other patent local rules. READ MORE
As we posted earlier this month, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rules”) are effective December 1, 2015. The amendments apply to newly filed cases, as well as pending cases “insofar as just and practicable.” The amendments are expected to impact numerous aspects of litigation including service of process, discovery (including electronically stored information (“ESI”)), default judgments, and possibly pleadings requirements in patent cases. The following is a summary of changes to the Rules: READ MORE
We’re excited to announce Orrick’s new sister-blog, Trust Anchor!
Trust Anchor highlights current topics in cybersecurity and data privacy, such as recent cases, legislative and regulatory developments, emerging standards, risk management strategies and insurance coverage. It’s not just news. Instead, it aims to review new developments and offer actionable privacy and cybersecurity intel and strategies. READ MORE
With Congress back in session, patent reform may be back on the agenda for the current term. Orrick partner Sid Venkatesan and summer associate Lisa Patel provide an overview of the current patent reform proposals over at TechCrunch.
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss. iLife Technologies Inc. v. AliphCom, Case No. 14-cv-03345-WHO
Pleading inequitable conduct—fraud on the Patent Office (PTO) by withholding or misrepresenting material information—can be a tricky exercise when defending against a claim of patent infringement. Though the Federal Circuit made clear in Therasense v. Becton Dickinson that there is a heightened standard for proving the inequitable conduct, it left open the question of whether this heightened standard also applies to pleading the defense. Accordingly, parties pleading inequitable conduct are left with uncertainty in how detailed their allegations must be, especially for issues such as the required element of specific intent to deceive the PTO. Judge William Orrick’s decision in iLife Technologies gives guidance as to this issue. READ MORE
Software patents are dropping like flies. Last week, we reported the first decision in the Northern District to invalidate a software patent under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 in the wake of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). In a similar ruling this week, Judge Ronald Whyte found that a patent held by Cogent Medicine, Inc. failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter, and granted a 12(b)(6) motion dismissing Cogent Medicine’s patent infringement claims under section 101 in Cogent Medicine, Inc. v. Elsevier Inc., Nos. C-13-4479, -4483, -4486 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014).
The Northern District has had a very good record of putting on substantive programming through its Practice Program. Yesterday’s patent practice event, featuring Judges Jeremy Fogel and Susan Illston from the Northern District of California, Judge Leonard Davis from the Eastern District of Texas and Judge Sue Robinson from the District of Delaware was no exception. READ MORE