The Latest From Kinney and Lange

Tag Archive: Patents

Recent Patents | Newsletter Vol 7, Issue 1

Kinney & Lange P.A. files hundreds of new patent applications each year in a wide variety of technology areas. Below are a few recently issued U.S. patents for which the firm is listed as the legal representative.   8,856,708 “Multi-tier Field-Programmable Gate Array Hardware Requirements Assessment and Verification for Airborne Electronic Systems” 8,852,233 “Apparatus for the Correction of Skeletal Deformities” 8,812,253 “Fluid Flow Measurement with Phase-based Diagnostics” 8,884,606 “Inverted Magnetic Isolator” 8,843,348 “Engine Noise Monitoring as Engine Health Management Tool” 8,872,522 “Frequency Based Fault Detection”

FTC REACHES SETTLEMENT WITH MPHJ

■ Nicholas J. Peterka On November 6, the Federal Trade Commission and MPHJ Technology Investments LLC agreed to settle FTC charges alleging MPHJ used deceptive practices and phony legal threats. The settlement prevents MPHJ and its law firm, Farney Daniels, P.C., from making deceptive representations when asserting its patent rights, with further deceptive conduct bringing with it a penalty of up to $16,000 per misrepresentation. The settlement comes on the heels of a September ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss a suit filed by MPHJ against the FTC. The suit, which was...

PATENT ELIGIBILITY UNDER ALICE

■ Thea E. Reilkoff On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, No. 13-2988 (U.S., June 19, 2014), holding all claims in patents for a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risk invalid as drawn to an abstract idea, ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Court revisited prior case law to reaffirm that a generic computer and generic instructions are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patent eligible invention, but declined to further define the contours of what constitutes an abstract idea. Notably, the Court solidified...

Beyond the Looking Glass: Patent-Eligible Subject Matter After Alice and Mayo

By Erik Wright and Austen Zuege From Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 21, No. 11 (November 2014) In recent cases such as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), the Supreme Court has reiterated that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena cannot be patented. Inventions directed to any of these three categories must include sufficient extra material to form the basis of a patent. The Court has provided some guidance as to what kinds of claim language can satisfy this requirement, but has thus far declined to define the principal categories of patent-ineligible subject matter in...

Strategic Third-Party Submissions Against Patent Applications

By November 1, 2012 ,

By Austen Zuege From Intellectual Property Today Vol. 19, No. 12 (December 2012) The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) expanded opportunities for third parties to submit publications and comments against patent applications pending before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). New procedures under 35 U.S.C. § 122(e) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.290 went into effect September 16, 2012 that provide a window for third-party pre-issuance submissions with explanations of relevance. Used strategically, these procedures can provide a powerful and cost-effective tool for reducing infringement risks from overly broad patent claims. Legislative history claims these submissions “will allow the public...

A New Era for Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

By Austen Zuege From Intellectual Property Today, Vol. 19, No. 5 (May 2012) The Supreme Court has announced a new approach to assessing patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Bilski v. Kappos “punted” and did little more than reiterate that laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas are ineligible for patent protection, stating that the machine-or-transformation (“MoT”) test may be a useful and important clue or investigative tool but is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process”. [1] But in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., a unanimous Court...