http://www.pattonboggs.com/ en-us Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:06:30 GMT Thu, 02 Sep 2010 10:06:30 GMT http://www.pattonboggs.com/Events/Detail.aspx?firmEvent=507 Event http://www.pattonboggs.com/Events/Detail.aspx?firmEvent=507 Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:00:00 GMT A violation of the federal false marking statute occurs when a patent owner (1) falsely marks an article with a patent number, or the words “patent,” “patented,” “patent pending” or the like, and (2) does so with an intent to deceive the public. 35 U.S.C. § 292. The statute authorizes “qui tam” actions whereby any person can bring a lawsuit for a false marking violation and share any recovery with the government. On June 10, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that marking a product with either an expired patent or with the phrase “may be covered by one or more patents,” can give rise to liability under the federal false marking statute. The Court did, however, provide a defense to accused defendants under the “intent to deceive” prong under the test for false marking. Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 2009-1547 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2010). http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1226 News http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1226 Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that the underlying invention of In re Bilski was not patent eligible. The Supreme Court held that the machine-or-transformation test is only “a useful and important clue or investigative tool” for determining whether process claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Section 101 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §101 (Bilski v. Kappos, U.S., No. 08-964, 6/28/10). According to the Court, the machine-or-transformation test “is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible ‘process’ under §101.” Instead, “[t]he Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of ‘process’ that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.” http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1218 News http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1218 Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT An insurer for Hyundai Motor America was required by California law to defend the auto maker in a patent infringement suit under a clause in the contract between the two that applied to advertising liability, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held April 5. Hyundai was sued for patent infringement for two of the advertising methods on its website that allow customers to build their own vehicle and customize parts on them. After the insurers refused to defend Hyundai, it defended itself. It lost the suit, and sued the insurers to recover its costs. The insurers claimed that the alleged patent infringement did not constitute “advertising injury” under the contract. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1220 News http://www.pattonboggs.com/news/Detail.aspx?news=1220 Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT