<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" version="2.0"><channel><title>Patent News Podcast</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/patent-news-podcast--3536747</link><description><![CDATA[Patent News Podcast provides summaries of recent Federal Circuit decisions related to intellectual property law.  Use your commute time rather than your time at your desk to catch up on the latest patent decisions.]]></description><atom:link href="https://www.spreaker.com/show/3536747/episodes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><language>en</language><category>News</category><copyright>Copyright Coats + Bennett PLLC</copyright><lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2024 16:51:08 +0000</lastBuildDate><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:owner><itunes:name>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:name><itunes:email>feeds@spreaker.com</itunes:email></itunes:owner><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:subtitle>Patent News Podcast provides summaries of recent Federal Circuit decisions related to intellectual property law.  Use your commute time rather than your time at your desk to catch up on the latest patent decisions.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[Patent News Podcast provides summaries of recent Federal Circuit decisions related to intellectual property law.  Use your commute time rather than your time at your desk to catch up on the latest patent decisions.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:category text="News"/><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type><item><title>Special Edition - USPTO October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/special-edition-uspto-october-2019-update-subject-matter-eligibility--19688671</link><description><![CDATA[In a special edition of Patent News Podcast, this episode covers the Update memorandum from the USPTO regarding subject matter eligibility.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19688671</guid><pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 2019 16:13:34 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/19688671/special_edition.mp3" length="9380512" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>In a special edition of Patent News Podcast, this episode covers the Update memorandum from the USPTO regarding subject matter eligibility.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[In a special edition of Patent News Podcast, this episode covers the Update memorandum from the USPTO regarding subject matter eligibility.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>587</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>101,alice,alice/mayo,patentlaw,patentoffice,patents,stepone,steptwo,subjectmattereligibility,uspto</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 010 - SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-010-sri-int-l-inc-v-cisco-sys-inc--19214842</link><description><![CDATA[On July 12, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion from an appeal of a decision from the District of Delaware addressing patentable subject matter under section 101, claim construction, anticipation, sua sponte summary judgment, willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.<br /><br />SRI Int’l., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Docket No. 17-2223 (CAFC July 12, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2223.Opinion.7-12-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2223.Opinion.7-12-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,484,203<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6484203B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6484203B1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,711,615<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6711615B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6711615B2</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19214842</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Sep 2019 14:30:31 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/19214842/episode_010.mp3" length="7116871" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On July 12, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion from an appeal of a decision from the District of Delaware addressing patentable subject matter under section 101, claim construction, anticipation, sua sponte summary judgment,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On July 12, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion from an appeal of a decision from the District of Delaware addressing patentable subject matter under section 101, claim construction, anticipation, sua sponte summary judgment, willful infringement, attorneys’ fees, and ongoing royalties.<br /><br />SRI Int’l., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., Docket No. 17-2223 (CAFC July 12, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2223.Opinion.7-12-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2223.Opinion.7-12-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,484,203<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6484203B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6484203B1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,711,615<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6711615B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6711615B2</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>445</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>101,102,anticipation,attorneysfees,cafc,claimconstruction,compulsorylicensing,ddel,districtcourt,districtofdelaware,federalcircuit,patenteligblesubjectmatter,patentlaw,patents,royalties,suasponte,willfulinfringement</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 009 - TQ Delta v. DISH Network and Cisco Sys. v. TQ Delta</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-009-tq-delta-v-dish-network-and-cisco-sys-v-tq-delta--19139299</link><description><![CDATA[On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing the Administrative Procedure Act, claim construction, and obviousness.<br /><br />TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, Docket No. 18-1799 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1799.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1799.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, Docket No. 18-1806 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1806.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1806.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8611404B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8611404B2</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19139299</guid><pubDate>Wed, 18 Sep 2019 13:34:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/19139299/episode_009.mp3" length="7575384" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing the Administrative Procedure Act, claim construction, and obviousness.

TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC,...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing the Administrative Procedure Act, claim construction, and obviousness.<br /><br />TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, Docket No. 18-1799 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1799.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1799.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />Cisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, Docket No. 18-1806 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1806.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1806.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,611,404<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8611404B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8611404B2</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>474</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>103,administrativeprocedureact,apa,cafc,claimconstruction,evidence,federalcircuit,obviousness,patent,patentlaw,patenttrialandappealboard,ptab</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 008 - Quake v. Lo and General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp.</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-008-quake-v-lo-and-general-electric-co-v-united-technologies-corp--19119651</link><description><![CDATA[On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing written description and jurisdiction.<br /><br />Quake v. Lo, Docket No. 18-1779 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1779.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1779.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8008018B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8008018B2</a><br />U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0170114, publication of U.S. App. No. 12/393,833<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090170114A1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090170114A1</a><br /><br />General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 17-2497 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2497.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2497.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8511605B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8511605B2</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/19119651</guid><pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 2019 11:00:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/19119651/episode_008.mp3" length="11463202" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing written description and jurisdiction.

Quake v. Lo, Docket No. 18-1779 (CAFC July 10, 2019) -...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing written description and jurisdiction.<br /><br />Quake v. Lo, Docket No. 18-1779 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1779.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1779.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,008,018<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8008018B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8008018B2</a><br />U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2009/0170114, publication of U.S. App. No. 12/393,833<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090170114A1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090170114A1</a><br /><br />General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., 17-2497 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2497.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2497.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605<br /><a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8511605B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8511605B2</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>717</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>112,articleiii,cafc,economicinjury,evidence,evidentiaryrequirement,federalcircuit,interference,jurisdiction,lackofjurisdiction,patent,patentboard,patentlaw,patents,ptab,uspto,writtendescription</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 007 - In re Global, Enzo v. Roche, and Westech v. 3M</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-007-in-re-global-enzo-v-roche-and-westech-v-3m--18758787</link><description><![CDATA[On July 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions regarding patent law:  In re Global, Enzo v. Roche, and Westech v. 3M.  The court addressed reissue claims and written description, lack of enablement, and improper venue along with Attorneys fees and costs. <br /><br />In Re:  Global IP Holdings LLC, Docket No. 18-1426 (CAFC July 5, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1426.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1426.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8690233B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8690233B2</a><br /><br />Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., Docket No. 17-2498  (CAFC July 5, 2019) -  <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2498.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2498.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,992,180 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6992180B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6992180B1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,097,405 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8097405B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8097405B1</a><br /><br />Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3M Co., Docket No. 18-1699  (CAFC July 5, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1699.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1699.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 7,705,056 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US7705056B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US7705056B1</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18758787</guid><pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2019 01:15:29 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18758787/episode_007.mp3" length="15733524" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On July 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions regarding patent law:  In re Global, Enzo v. Roche, and Westech v. 3M.  The court addressed reissue claims and written description, lack of enablement, and improper venue along...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On July 5, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued three precedential opinions regarding patent law:  In re Global, Enzo v. Roche, and Westech v. 3M.  The court addressed reissue claims and written description, lack of enablement, and improper venue along with Attorneys fees and costs. <br /><br />In Re:  Global IP Holdings LLC, Docket No. 18-1426 (CAFC July 5, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1426.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1426.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,690,233 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8690233B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8690233B2</a><br /><br />Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., Docket No. 17-2498  (CAFC July 5, 2019) -  <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2498.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2498.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 6,992,180 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US6992180B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US6992180B1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 8,097,405 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US8097405B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US8097405B1</a><br /><br />Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3M Co., Docket No. 18-1699  (CAFC July 5, 2019) - <br /><a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1699.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1699.Opinion.7-5-2019.pdf</a><br />U.S. Patent No. 7,705,056 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US7705056B1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US7705056B1</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>984</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>112,1400,attorneysfees,cafc,ddel,districtofdelaware,enablement,federalcircuit,lackofenablement,patentboard,patentlaw,patents,patenttrialandappealboard,ptab,reissue,sanctions,venue,wdwash,westerndistrictofwashington,writtendescription</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 006 - Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo en banc denial of rehearing</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-006-athena-diagnostics-v-mayo-en-banc-denial-of-rehearing--18612105</link><description><![CDATA[On July 3, 2019, in a 7-5 split, the Federal Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo regarding questions of 101 and patentability of medical diagnostic claims under the current Alice/Mayo test and the Court's own precedent.  Eight of the twelve judges in the case authored their own opinions.<br /><br />Athena Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, Docket No. 2017-2508 (CAFC July 3, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2508.Order.7-3-2019.1.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2508.Order.7-3-2019.1.pdf</a><br /><br />U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US7267820B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US7267820B2</a><br /><br />Full video of The State of Patent Eligibility in America: Part I - <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-i" rel="noopener">https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-i</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18612105</guid><pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2019 14:55:49 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18612105/episode_006.mp3" length="11960588" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On July 3, 2019, in a 7-5 split, the Federal Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo regarding questions of 101 and patentability of medical diagnostic claims under the current Alice/Mayo test and the Court's own precedent....</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On July 3, 2019, in a 7-5 split, the Federal Circuit denied an en banc rehearing of Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo regarding questions of 101 and patentability of medical diagnostic claims under the current Alice/Mayo test and the Court's own precedent.  Eight of the twelve judges in the case authored their own opinions.<br /><br />Athena Diagnostics, Inc., et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC, Docket No. 2017-2508 (CAFC July 3, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2508.Order.7-3-2019.1.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-2508.Order.7-3-2019.1.pdf</a><br /><br />U.S. Patent No. 7,267,820 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/US7267820B2" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/US7267820B2</a><br /><br />Full video of The State of Patent Eligibility in America: Part I - <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-i" rel="noopener">https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-i</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>748</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>101,alice/mayo,cafc,enbanc,federalcircuit,mayo,medicaldiagnostics,patentability,patentlaw,patents,scotus,supremecourt</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 005 - Kolcraft Ent. v. Graco Children's Products</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-005-kolcraft-ent-v-graco-children-s-products--18533401</link><description><![CDATA[On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  Kolcraft Ent. v. Graco Children's Products.  The court addressed evidence of prior conception in an IPR proceeding.<br /><br />Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., Docket No. 2018-1259 (CAFC July 2, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1259.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1259.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf</a><br /><br />U.S. Patent No. D604,970 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604970S1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604970S1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. D616,231 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD616231S1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/USD616231S1</a>]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18533401</guid><pubDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2019 14:17:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18533401/episode_005.mp3" length="5901842" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  Kolcraft Ent. v. Graco Children's Products.  The court addressed evidence of prior conception in an IPR proceeding.

Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  Kolcraft Ent. v. Graco Children's Products.  The court addressed evidence of prior conception in an IPR proceeding.<br /><br />Kolcraft Enterprises, Inc. v. Graco Children’s Products, Inc., Docket No. 2018-1259 (CAFC July 2, 2019) - <a href="http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1259.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf" rel="noopener">http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1259.Opinion.7-2-2019.pdf</a><br /><br />U.S. Patent No. D604,970 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604970S1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/USD604970S1</a><br />U.S. Patent No. D616,231 - <a href="https://patents.google.com/patent/USD616231S1" rel="noopener">https://patents.google.com/patent/USD616231S1</a>]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>369</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>antedate,cafc,conception,designpatents,federalcircuit,matterofright,patentboard,patentlaw,patents,patenttrialandappealboard,ptab,reductiontopractice,surreply,sur-reply,trialpracticeguide</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 004 - Elbit v. Hughes and Cellsoft v. Fitbit</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-004-elbit-v-hughes-and-cellsoft-v-fitbit--18491031</link><description><![CDATA[On June 24, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Elbit Systems Land and C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit Inc.   The court addressed unquantified attorney’s fees and the Mayo/Alice two step test for section 101.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18491031</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2019 16:57:59 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18491031/episode_004.mp3" length="11780039" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On June 24, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Elbit Systems Land and C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit Inc.   The court addressed unquantified attorney’s fees and...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On June 24, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Elbit Systems Land and C4i Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC and Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit Inc.   The court addressed unquantified attorney’s fees and the Mayo/Alice two step test for section 101.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>737</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>101,alice,attorneysfees,cafc,districtcourt,federalcircuit,mayo,mayoalice,patent,patentlaw,section101,steptwo</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 003 - UCB v. Watson Labs</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-003-ucb-v-watson-labs--18490307</link><description><![CDATA[On June 24, 2019, the court issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories and Actavis Laboratories.  The court addressed the doctrine of equivalents with regard to restriction requirements.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18490307</guid><pubDate>Mon, 08 Jul 2019 15:31:32 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18490307/episode_003.mp3" length="8200618" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On June 24, 2019, the court issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories and Actavis Laboratories.  The court addressed the doctrine of equivalents with regard to restriction requirements.</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On June 24, 2019, the court issued a precedential opinion regarding patent law:  UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories and Actavis Laboratories.  The court addressed the doctrine of equivalents with regard to restriction requirements.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>513</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cafc,chen,delaware,districtcourt,doctorineofequivalents,doe,ensnarement,federalcircuit,infringement,narrowingclaims,patent,patentlaw,restrictionrequirement,salebar,schall,taranto,vitiation</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 002 - Gaming and Tech v. Activision and Mayne Int'l v. Merck Sharpe &amp; Doehme</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-002-gaming-and-tech-v-activision-and-mayne-int-l-v-merck-sharpe-doehme--18451236</link><description><![CDATA[On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic industry requirement under § 1337, and claim validity in reissued patents.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18451236</guid><pubDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2019 21:34:15 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18451236/episode_002.mp3" length="8807963" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic industry requirement under § 1337, and claim validity in reissued patents.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>551</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>cafc,federalcircuit,interpartesreview,ipr,jurisdiction,obviousness,patent,patentlaw,timebar</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item><item><title>Episode 001 - Hyosung v. ITC and Forum v. Flow Valve</title><link>https://www.spreaker.com/episode/episode-001-hyosung-v-itc-and-forum-v-flow-valve--18360817</link><description><![CDATA[On June 17, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic industry requirement under § 1337, and claim validity in reissued patents.]]></description><guid isPermaLink="false">https://api.spreaker.com/episode/18360817</guid><pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 2019 15:33:26 +0000</pubDate><enclosure url="https://api.spreaker.com/download/episode/18360817/2019_06_24_episode_001.mp3" length="9554839" type="audio/mpeg"/><itunes:author>Coats + Bennett PLLC</itunes:author><itunes:subtitle>On June 17, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic...</itunes:subtitle><itunes:summary><![CDATA[On June 17, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law:  Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC.  The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic industry requirement under § 1337, and claim validity in reissued patents.]]></itunes:summary><itunes:duration>598</itunes:duration><itunes:keywords>1337,cafc,collateralconsequences,domesticindustry,economicprong,experttestimony,federalcircuit,futureinforcement,itc,patent,patentlaw,priorartasevidence,reissue,technicalprong</itunes:keywords><itunes:explicit>clean</itunes:explicit><itunes:image href="https://d3wo5wojvuv7l.cloudfront.net/t_rss_itunes_square_1400/images.spreaker.com/original/145f8051a63a44599b87f867e08d8306.jpg"/><itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType></item></channel></rss>
