(Informal 1-2 line summaries, which certainly should not be relied upon for legal or other research purposes)
-
- CAFC precedentially reverses this preliminary injunction, since the injunction effects no change in the anticipated product launch timelines ("Because Incyte
cannot enjoin Sun from launching after its ’335 patent expires, Sun’s multi-year head start is inevitable regardless
of any injunction . . . It was clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Incyte would be first to market if its preliminary injunction were granted . . . Incyte fails to provide nonspeculative evidence that it will be irreparably harmed by
Sun’s launch under these circumstances where Sun’s
multi-year head start is inevitable").
-
- CAFC precedentially affirms registration denial on the mark "Space Force" as fostering a false connection with the U.S. Space Force. This is precedential to clarify the timing for evidence ("Foster argues determining whether there is a false connection can only be based on facts prior to the application’s filing date . . . The government argues
the determination can be based on facts after the filing date"). Previous caselaw referred to the "time the mark was registered" as salient for the false connection analysis. Here, however, since the mark is being refused, i.e., it isn't yet registered, CAFC clarifies that the time of examination is what's pertinent ("we
hold § 2(a) bars registration of a pending application for a mark that falsely suggests a connection as of the time of examination. The false connection inquiry can therefore
include evidence that comes into existence during the examination process."). Based on those dates, CAFC finds adequate evidence of false connection and affirms.
-
- CAFC precedentially finds lack of standing for this appeal ("To show standing, an appellant must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.”"). Here, CAFC finds insufficient evidence for potential infringement liability on the original record, finds the Appellant's delay in filing a Lee declaration unjustified, and even if justified, "the supplemental Lee declaration does not make standing patently obvious and inserts a new theory as to how Incyte’s product will satisfy the dosage limitation." Basically "Incyte’s development plans amount to an expression of intent to create a product that runs a substantial risk of infringement if it is able to clear all development hurdles, secure FDA-approval, and bring its product to market. This is too speculative to show concrete plans to develop a deuterated ruxolitinib product to treat hair loss at specific dosages." Ergo, dismissed.
-
- CAFC precedentially affirms rejection of the amended claim (involving "method[s] implemented on an online networkconnecting websites to computers of respective users for buying and selling of click-through traffic") in this reissue, as being broader than the issued claim and outside the 2-year grace period. Basically "Appellants argue that the proper inquiry is not whether the scope of reissue claim 3 is broader than the scope of original claim 3, but whether the scope of reissue claim 3 is broader than the “intended scope” of original claim 3." This is precedential because CAFC's affirming that the latter is inapposite (analogous to certification, "the “suggestion that we compare claim scope by considering what was ‘intended’ by the parties, rather than by construing the claims for what they actually recite, is completely without merit.”").
-
- Another 101 ineligible subject matter case, this time for correlating tax status with aircraft landing information ("the district court concluded that the
asserted claims of the ’988 patent are directed to an abstract idea of “collecting aircraft-related data from multiple sources and using an algorithm to improve . . . what
can be gleaned from the data, and then referring to yet another database about taxation to determine the taxability
status” . . . The court
noted that determining a taxability status “is simply a matter of referring to various tax codes, and using a computer
to make this easier does not make it less abstract.”").
James Skelley is a solo practitioner based in Mountain View, California since 2015, focusing primarily upon technology transactions and intellectual property procurement. James' practice also serves as an "incubator" for new legal service technologies / methodologies and a "living example" of their application. To this end, James regularly partners with larger law firms and with his clients so as to improve the practice of intellectual property law.
- Utility / Design / PCT Patent Prosecution
- Open Source Diligence
- Technology Transactions (typically as a team)
- Litigation / Inter Partes Review Support (typically as a team)
- James tends NOT to handle low-volume trademark work (though referrals are available)
- USPTO - #59458 - 10/16/2006
- California - #257829 - 12/01/2008
- District Columbia - #1014986 - 08/05/2013
- James is available by email, 8x8 hangout, and in-person meetups in the Valley.
- Email is typically the best way to reach James.
- Machine Learning / Robotics
- Cryptograpy / Cryptocurrency / Smart Contracts
- Medical Device
- Computational Biology (primarily modeling and proteomics)
- Signal Processing (primarily wireless and compression)
- Quantum Physics (primarily semiconductor) / Electromagnetics (antennae, waveguides, etc.)
- Manufacturing / 3D Printing
- James tends NOT to handle pure chemistry applications (though referrals are available), however James HAS handled matters involving computational proteomics, cellular modeling, and diagnostic lab protocols
LawMux Bites are (very) short, one-page summaries of various legal concepts, cases, and technologies. As informal summaries, you certainly shouldn't rely upon them as legal advice / for business use, but they can help orient you if you're new to the subject matter.
