The arrival of a new month has brought with it another slew of lawsuits filed by ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies in the Southern District of Florida, asserting patent infringement against a host of business entities.
Anti-piracy legislation in both the U.S. House (H.R. 3261, Stop Online Piracy Act, or “SOPA”) and Senate (S.968 PROTECT IP Act, or “PIPA”) has been abruptly halted following this past Wednesday’s worldwide online blackout protest involving numerous popular Internet sites, tweets, blogs, and the like (including WIKIPEDIA). There has also been growing domestic concern over the potential extent of the federal government's reach in its effort to address rogue overseas websites.
Happy New Year!
As of January 1, 2012 the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is now permitting international PCT applicants who are interested in licensing their inventions to request that the International Bureau to make this information publicly available.
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., in which Mayo petitioned the Court to determine whether claims of Prometheus' patent directed to optimizing dosage levels of thiopurine for the treatment of various autoimmune disorders is patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. More specifically, the claims call for "administering" a certain amount of thiopurine to a patient and "determining" from the resulting metabolite level whether or not to increase or decrease the dosage.
Although the sunrise period has passed for brand owners from outside the adult entertainment industry to pay a one-time fee to block the registration of “.xxx” domain names matching their federally registered trademarks, many companies are now considering whether to directly purchase their .xxx domain name, and perhaps variations thereof, for “defensive” purposes.
In a precedential opinion issued this past Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected arguments that an accused device merely needs to be "capable" of being configured or programmed to perform a claimed function in order for patent infringement to occur.