With all of the criticism being levied against so-called “patent trolls,” we were very interested in a lawsuit recently filed against a self-proclaimed and self-righteous “anti-troll” organization. (Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Allied Security Trust et al.)

Is a court’s summary judgment decision that your patent is invalid the end of the line? Not necessarily, at least not if you play your cards right. You may be able to convince the court to vacate its decision! (Gracenote, Inc. v. MusicMatch, Inc.)

Recently, the C.A.F.C. affirmed a lower court ruling that Montgomery Ward & Co. had induced infringement of a patent held by SEB, S.A. Now, the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association and the Federal Circuit Bar Association have submitted a joint amici curiae brief seeking an en banc review of this decision in order to “clarify the legal standard required to prove induced infringement.”

While suing attorneys is certainly a fun activity, it is not without its risks. As we previously noted, it is sometimes better to let sleeping dogs lie. Some people, unfortunately, did not get the message. (Sokol Holdings Inc. et al. v. Dorsey & Whitney LLP)

Baby care products are a big and highly profitable business and, like all highly profitable businesses, attract crime. Two recently filed cases are prime examples of this exploding crime wave: Pepperidge Farm Inc. v. The Gymboree Corp. and Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Baby Beer Bottles Inc. et al.

By now the reader should be familiar with the Markman hearing (in case the reader somehow missed it, the Markman hearing is where the judge construes various words and phrases of patent claims being asserted). The reader may also be aware of the Daubert hearing, where the judge decides whether a proffered expert witness is indeed expert enough to be allowed to testify.

It would appear that suing lawyers for malpractice has become so popular that it may become an Olympic event. If it does, we know of one party that is not likely to win the gold. (Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc. et al. v. Patterson, Thuente, Skaar & Christensen PA)

In case anyone still cares – and they SHOULD – the famous, or infamous, Amazon 1-click patent is about to emerge from a four (4) year re-examination. Five of the original claims (nos. 6-10) have been confirmed, while 21 claims (nos. 1-5 and 11-26) have been allowed as amended. The amendment adds the limitation that the 1-click system is employed in conjunction with the “shopping cart model.” Since the shopping cart model is used by most retail e-commerce websites, this added limitation does not appreciably narrow the scope of the claims.

Some time ago, we wrote of the fascinating case of Capitol Records Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset, where a jury found the defendant guilty of illegally downloading twenty-four (24) songs and assessed damages of $222K. On appeal, Thomas-Rasset was awarded a new trial. The second jury again found her guilty, awarding $80K per song, or $1.92M (yup, almost two million bucks) in damages. Then, late in January, the Chief Judge described the second verdict as “monstrous and shocking” and ordered it reduced to $54K.

In 1996, the law governing the term of a U.S. patent changed. Today, a patent expires twenty (20) years from the date of filing of the corresponding patent application. For patent applications filed under the old law, the applicants may elect a term extending seventeen (17) years from the date of issue of the patent. The perceptive reader will have noted that, under the old law, time spent in prosecution was not deducted from the term of the patent.