Header graphic for print
LimeGreenIP News

Tag Archives: Patent

IP is at the heart of life sciences innovation

In recent years, technology and innovation has advanced at an unprecedented pace. Flying taxi drones, self-driving cars and 3D-printers immediately come to mind. However, exciting progress has been made in life sciences and the healthcare sector as well. With CRISPR, bionic limbs and 3D-printed tissue, the medical sector has never been closer to eliminating disease

China: Shanghai IP Court Head Judge Wu provides overview of the new court, the establishment of a technical department and technical investigators

We have been keeping followers of LimeGreen IP News informed about the newly-established specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (see Specialized IP Courts in China are Open for Business).  Last week, the US-China Business Council (USCBC) invited the head of the Shanghai IP Court, Judge Wu Xielin (吴偕林), to speak to its members

U.S. Supreme Court Affirms That Certain Computer-Implemented Abstract Ideas Are Ineligible For Patent Protection

(U.S. Supreme Court, Decision of 19 June 2014, No. 13-298, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l) The U.S. Supreme Court held that (1) patent claims directed to the abstract idea of mitigating “settlement risk” were not patentable where they merely required generic computer implementation, and (2) the recitation of generic computer components in

Spain: The deciding factor: court-appointed experts

In view of their limited resources and technical knowledge in certain areas, Spanish courts rely heavily on opinions issued by “independent” experts and bodies such as the Spanish Patents and Trademark Office (“PTO”). In the absence of patent courts, experts play a significant role in patent infringement and revocation proceedings (both exclusively heard by civil

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Federal Circuit’s Standard for Inducement of Patent Infringement

(U.S. Supreme Court, Decision of 2 June 2014, No. 12-786, Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs., Inc.) Rejecting the Federal Circuit’s fractured en banc decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) when no direct infringement has occurred under § 271(a). Akamai

The U.S. Supreme Court Sinks The Federal Circuit’s Indefiniteness Standard In Nautilus Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

(U.S. Supreme Court, Decision of 2 June, 2014, No. 13-369, Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.) The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision lowered the standard for finding a patent claim indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2. Previously, the Federal Circuit would find a claim term indefinite “only when it is ‘not amenable to construction’