In Ninth Circuit Arbitration Agreements Prohibited for AB 51 natlawreview.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from natlawreview.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
The USPTO 101 Guidance document has been under a cloud when
Judge Brinkema refused to follow the guidance in
Cleveland
Clinic Found. V. True Health Diagnostics LLC., affirmed
at 760 F. App x. 1013, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Cleveland
Clinic relied on Guidance example 29, claim 1 to assert that its
claims were patent eligible since they were drafted in the same
manner. The Federal Circuit in rejecting the argument found the 101
Guidance example 29, claim 1 to be “strikingly” similar
to claim 1, see760 F. App x. at 1020, which the Federal Circuit
held was patent ineligible. The guidance teaches that example 29,
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because the complaint alleged knowledge of the asserted patents solely based on averments in prior original and amended complaints in the same lawsuit.
ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. 19-cv-01687, ECF 57. In so doing, Judge Connolly reaffirmed the majority position among divided U.S. District Courts, that a complaint asserting patent infringement cannot itself establish knowledge of an asserted patent sufficient to support a claim for indirect or willful patent infringement.
Advertisement
District of Delaware Recites Policy Rationale for Dismissing Willful and Indirect Infringement Claims for Failure to Plead Pre-Suit Knowledge of Infringement Monday, April 5, 2021
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because the complaint alleged knowledge of the asserted patents solely based on averments in prior original and amended complaints in the same lawsuit.
ZapFraud, Inc. v. Barracuda Networks, Inc., No. 19-cv-01687, ECF 57. In so doing, Judge Connolly reaffirmed the majority position among divided U.S. District Courts, that a complaint asserting patent infringement cannot itself establish knowledge of an asserted patent sufficient to support a claim for indirect or willful patent infringement.