This week in Other Barks & Bites: Arthrex files a reply in its Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of PTAB appointments, while another SCOTUS petition was filed to appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the “Stairway to Heaven” copyright case; the Federal Circuit affirms an examiner’s obviousness rejection of monotype printing patent claims and also upholds sanctions against a pair of doctors for procedural issues stemming from more than 300 patent complaints filed in district court; the D.C. Circuit remands part of a royalty rate setting proceeding on streaming music distribution to the Copyright Royalty Board; a jury verdict in Eastern Texas awards $506 million to PanOptis for Apple’s willful infringement of patent claims; the TTAB sustains an opposition against “gruyere” for genericness; and the Federal Reserve announces that it has undertaken several initiatives related to central bank digital currencies.
Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 14: Arthrex Files Reply at Supreme Court, Skidmore Appeals to SCOTUS in “Stairway to Heaven” Case, and Texas Jury Awards $506 Million Verdict Against Apple
No Comments
Patent
- Enablement
- Fee Shifting
- Litigation
- NetSoc Appeals to SCOTUS, Claiming Improper Analysis of Social Network Patent Nixed Under 101
- The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle
- Tillis, Michel and Iancu Back Ericsson in Heated International FRAND Dispute with Samsung
- The mRNA IP and Competitive Landscape Through One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Part I
- The Upshot of Google v. Oracle: An Absurd Ruling Will Lead to Absurd Results
Recent Posts
- NetSoc Appeals to SCOTUS, Claiming Improper Analysis of Social Network Patent Nixed Under 101
- The View from the Court’s 2 Live Crew: Examining the Thomas/Alito Dissent in Google v. Oracle
- Tillis, Michel and Iancu Back Ericsson in Heated International FRAND Dispute with Samsung
- The mRNA IP and Competitive Landscape Through One Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic – Part I
- The Upshot of Google v. Oracle: An Absurd Ruling Will Lead to Absurd Results