Matthew M. Lubozynski is a member of the Firm's Intellectual Property Protection & Litigation Service Team. He concentrates his practice in the area of intellectual property, patent and general litigation matters. Matt is also a ...
By: Matthew M. Lubozynski
About 10 months ago, I wrote about a case from the Eastern District of Virginia concerning whether the Patent Act requires that an inventor be a human being versus artificial intelligence in order to be granted a patent. See Thaler v. Hirshfeld, No. 1:20-cv-903 (LMB/TCB), 2021 EL 3934802 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2021). Under ...
By: Matt Lubozynski
Recently, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia decided whether the Patent Act requires that an inventor be a human being versus artificial intelligence in order to be granted a patent. See Thaler v. Hirshfeld, No. 1:20-cv-903 (LMB/TCB), 2021 EL 3934802 (E.D. Va. Sept. 2, 2021). Under the ...
By: Matt Lubozynski
The Supreme Court recently decided another intellectual property case in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., No. 18-1086, 2020 WL 2477020, at *2 (U.S. May 14, 2020) (“Lucky Brand”). Although the case concerned trademark infringement, the issue before the Supreme Court went to whether to recognize ...
Yesterday, in a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court broadened what can be considered an “article of manufacture” for design patent infringement. See Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, --- S. Ct. ---, 2016 WL 7078449 (Dec. 7, 2016). “Patent protection is available for a ‘new, original ...
Matt Lubozynski, member of Wyatt's Intellectual Property Protection & Litigation Service Team, wrote an article that was recently published in the Memphis Daily News. The article, "Patent-holders Feel More Secure Thanks to Patent-Infringement Lawsuit Ruling," discusses how the Supreme Court's decision in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse ...
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, “eschew[ed] any rigid formula for awarding enhanced damages under § 284,” abandoned the prior “unduly rigid” Seagate test laid out by the Federal Circuit, and instead left the award of enhanced damages simply to the discretion of the district court. ...
The Federal Circuit recently made an important ruling concerning the proper venue for patent infringement suits. The decision by the Federal Circuit did not change the current interpretation of the venue statutes and companies will continue to be brought into court in such locations as the Eastern District of Texas ...
On December 18, Congress adjourned for the year without enacting any new patent legislation. This is despite the fact that late in 2014, members of Congress stated that patent reform was a priority for the 114th Congress, and particularly for 2015. Many commentators believed that significant patent reform was likely ...
The Federal Circuit issued an important en banc ruling in August expanding what can constitute direct infringement of a method claim when one actor does not perform all of the elements of the claim at issue. See Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2015) (“Akamai II” ...
When business disputes cannot be resolved by negotiation or arbitration, the parties involved often turn to litigation. However, these business disputes frequently involve complex, time-consuming and costly proceedings that would be more appropriate in a specialized forum.
To better serve the litigation needs of ...
By Matthew M. Lubozynski and Amanda Warford Edge
Just over a year ago, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two landmark patent opinions—Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.1 and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. System, Inc.2 Both cases dealt with the Federal Circuit’s application of 35 U.S.C. § 285, which ...
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued an important ruling in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., concerning defenses available to a defendant accused of inducing infringement of a patent. Generally, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, there are 3 ways one can be found liable for patent infringement. First, one can be found to ...