IP

The story of uBiome can serve as a guidepost for other startup founders.

Supreme Court Sets New Indefiniteness Standard In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., Appeal No. 13-169, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded Federal Circuit’s reversal of summary judgment because the Federal Circuit’s definiteness standard was too lenient. Biosig filed a patent infringement suit claiming Nautilus’ exercise machines infringed its patent. Biosig’s patent claims a heart rate monitor that includes a “live” electrode and “common” electrode “mounted . . . in spaced relationship with each other.” The district court granted Nautilus’ motion for summary judgment on the basis the claim term “in spaced relationship with each other” failed the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, finding a patent claim meets the definiteness threshold so long as the claim is “amenable to construction” and the claim is not “insolubly ambiguous.” The Supreme Court held the Federal Circuit’s test does not satisfy the statute’s definiteness requirement and can leave courts without a reliable compass. The Court held a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. The Court emphasized this standard not only takes into account the inherent limitations of language, but also requires a patent must be precise enough to afford clear notice of what is claimed. The Court vacated and remanded to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration under the proper standard.

A few weeks back, Steve discussed Apple’s recent applications to register a trio of non-verbal trademarks. Spoiler alert: This post contains the USPTO’s ultimate decision regarding the registrability of the design and layout of various application icons as part of a computer operating system, using rectangular geometric figures in rows. However, it isn’t a spoiler for Apple’s applications referenced above (those applications have yet to be assigned to an examining attorney). No, instead, I’m referring to a since-abandoned application that provides some interesting contrast with Apple’s applications. In 2012, Microsoft filed an intent-to-use application for the mark shown below:

How did the 200 largest law firms in the country apportion their new partners among practice areas?

Which firms do Biglaw attorneys think are more sizzle than steak? Check out our survey results and find out!

The New York Times extensively digs into the patent wars gripping the tech industry.

A new collaboration between Google, the USPTO, and Stack Exchange hopes to use crowd-sourcing to end America's patent wars...

In the wake of Apple v. Samsung, Google is learning a valuable (and dare we say obvious) lesson.

Three young lawyers make a hilarious music video lampooning the American patent system.

We take a look back at the Apple v. Samsung trial, and where things will go from here…

Chris Danzig attended closing arguments in Apple v. Samsung. The day did not disappoint, with stellar performances by top lawyers from Morrison & Foerster, Quinn Emanuel, and WilmerHale.

Closing statements in Apple v. Samsung are tomorrow. How will this case affect the global smartphone market?

Apple v. Samsung moves right along and still manages to maintain the crazy.

We've got MOAR techno drama at the Apple v. Samsung trial this week, as Apple rests its case.

We step back and look at the broader context of Apple v. Samsung. And we check out the latest controversy in the case, involving a prominent lawyer's admission to practice in the Northern District of California…

Chris Danzig attended the Apple v. Samsung trial yesterday. What happened?

What are the newest updates in Apple v. Samsung?

John Quinn files a declaration defending his personal reputation in the Apple v. Samsung trial.