A case might be good and proof of infringement robust, but not every case is a guaranteed winner. It might take years for any realistic vindication, and even in winning there are heavy costs to bear.
Recent Federal Circuit precedent has given some hope that, through the use of artfully‑drafted claim language, diagnostic tests may still be eligible for patenting. And in view of the central importance of diagnostic testing to the present COVID-19 crisis, the policy considerations that underlie strengthening innovation incentives in the diagnostic space have become more compelling and more urgent.
Discussed here is “routine optimization,” an approach to obviousness in cases where the gap between the prior art and patent claims appears to be one that the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art would necessarily bridge in the ordinary course of development.
This article explores ways parties can utilize two conventional SEP valuation methodologies to address problems related to 5G licensing for IoT products.
‘Canada Hockey v. Texas A&M University’, now pending in the Fifth Circuit, presents the question of whether there are any circumstances under which a state actor can be held liable for infringement. Did “by no means always” really mean “never”? And, if not, where is the line?