The design patent train has been chugging along ever since the Federal Circuit overhauled the test for determining design patent infringement back in September 2008, making it easier for design patent owners to establish infringement and signaling the start of a pro-design patent era.?á Apple jumped on the design patent train by winning a $399 million (!) award at the expense of Samsung after Samsung?ÇÖs smartphones were found to infringe Apple?ÇÖs design patents relating to the front portion of Apple?ÇÖs iPhone.?á This high-profile litigation award heightened awareness of the value of design patents, and the design patent train kept chugging. However, the design patent train appears to have hit a cow on the tracks, the cow being a unanimous 8-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, (Dec. 6, 2016), overturning Apple?ÇÖs $399 million award. The $399 million award by the lower… Continue Reading
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (?Ç£HHS?Ç¥) recently issued an interim final rule (the ?Ç£HHS Rule?Ç¥), which sets out inflation adjustments to the civil monetary penalty (?Ç£CMP?Ç¥) amounts that HHS is authorized to assess or enforce, including for violations of the HIPAA privacy and security rules. The HHS Rule was issued for compliance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which was enacted on November 2, 2015 (the ?Ç£2015 Act?Ç¥). The 2015 Act requires federal agencies to (i) adjust the level of CMP amounts with an initial ?Ç£catch up?Ç¥ adjustment and (ii) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The HIPAA CMP amounts had not been adjusted since 2009. Under the HHS Rule, HIPAA CMP amounts are increased by 10.2% for violations of the HIPAA privacy or security rules by a covered entity or a business associate, as follows: Prior $$… Continue Reading
Don?ÇÖt Worry ?Çô You Got This: the Federal Circuit Clarifies the PTAB?ÇÖs Power to Review IPR decisions after Cuozzo.
The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) has authority to review institution decisions for inter partes reviews (IPRs), according to the Federal Circuit?ÇÖs October 20 decision in Medtronic v. Robert Bosch Healthcare.1?áThis decision comes after Medtronic petitioned for rehearing after the Supreme Court?ÇÖs decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee.2 Background The Medtronic suit began in 2013 when Bosch alleged that Cardiocom, LLC (a subsidiary of Medtronic) infringed Pat. Nos. 7,769,605 and 7,870,249, directed to patient monitoring systems.?á Cardiocom then petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the two patents. After those petitions were denied, Medtronic filed an additional three petitions for the same two patents, listing Medtronic as the sole real party in interest.?á Even though Bosch argued that the petitions should be denied because Medtronic failed to name Cardiocom as a real party in interest as required under 35 U.S.C. ?º 312(a)(2), the PTAB instituted IPR proceedings.?á… Continue Reading