In a ruling designated as informative, PTAB rejected a patent owner's argument that the petitions were time-barred under 35 USC 315(b), finding that an amended complaint is not served until the filing of the amended complaint. TRW Automotive US LLC v. Magna Elecs., Inc., Nos. IPR2014-00293; -00294; -00296; -00297 and -00298 (PTAB June 27, 2014). On December 24, 2013, petitioner TRW filed two IPR petitions challenging Magna's patent relating to an improved electronic rearview mirror system. Magna contended that the petitions were time-barred under 35 USC 315(b), which requires the filing of petitions within one year of a petitioner being served with a complaint. Here, Magna filed a complaint in district court on June 20, 2012 alleging TRW's infringement of its patents. On December 20, 2012, Magna filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, which the court granted on December 26, 2012. Magna argued that the amended complaint with the motion was served on counsel on December 20th when they received a notice of electronic filing of the papers and therefore, that date serves as the date for time-bar. Rejecting the patent owner's arguments, PTAB concluded that the amended complaint was not served on TRW for purposes of Section 315(b) until the court had filed it because prior to the grant of motion for leave, the amended complaint was just a proposal and TRW was not under the court's authority or obliged to engage in litigation related to the challenged patent.
Full text of the guidelines are available here.
In a much-awaited decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board canceled the registration of the Redskins mark on the grounds of disparagement. Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. A divided panel cancelled six registrations owned by the Washington Redskins football team under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act on the grounds that the marks containing the words REDSKINS or REDSKINETTES was disparaging. The board reasoned that the record in this case showed a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS disparaging and the respondent's argument that the term had secondary meaning denoting a football team as unpersuasive.
In an unanimous decision, the United States Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l. The Court held that the method claims directed to facilitate the exchange of financial obligations between two parties by using a computer system as a third-party intermediary was drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Using the framework provided in Mayo Collaborative Svcs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., the Court determined that the claims at issue were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement and generic computer implementation failed to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Full text of the opinion is available here.
supreme court boots federal circuit's "insolubly ambiguous" and "Amenable to construction" standard for section 112, paragraph 2
Disclaimer: The content in this blog is solely for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.