For a long time (actually until 1998), “methods of doing business” were legally deemed ineligible for patent protection. Then came the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (C.A.F.C.) in State Street Bank, which held that “business methods” are patentable subject matter.

Recently patentees nationwide celebrated the decision in Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., which seemed to suggest that a prevailing nonpracticing entity (NPE) could secure a permanent injunction barring the defendant from further infringement of the patent(s)-in-suit. Alas, the celebration is unwarranted. The holding in this case resulted from its rather unique facts. The general rule still remains that an NPE likely will not be awarded a permanent injunction.

October 29, 2008 - Pioneer Corp. was awarded $59 million following a verdict of willful infringement against South Korea's Samsung SDI Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., as well as Samsung Electronics America Inc., based on Ridgefield Park, New Jersey.

The verdict was the result of an eight-day trial in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, TX. The jury ruled in favor of Pioneer on every count, affirming the company's allegations of willful infringement against Samsung.

In patent infringement litigation, there can be few things as frustrating to a prevailing patentee as to see a generous damages award struck down “as a matter of law” because the judge decided that “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to support it.

Inequitable conduct, f/k/a fraud on the patent office, is a defense often raised by defendants accused of patent infringement. Simply stated, inequitable conduct involves either an intentional misrepresentation of material fact to – or an intentional withholding of material information from – the patent office (in layman’s terms: lying or hiding the ball). As a practical matter, the penalty for inequitable conduct is the loss of the patent (if you lie, you die). The courts have been increasingly likely to declare patents unenforceable due to inequitable conduct – until recently.

Thomas Jefferson, a prolific inventor, was the first patent examiner. (He didn’t spend all of his time with Sally Hemings.)

Abe Lincoln was the only president to be awarded a United States patent. (Al Gore eat your heart out.)

Albert Einstein was once a patent examiner in the Swiss patent office. (He was fired for refusing to get a decent haircut.)

Patent attorneys are reputed to have a great sense of humor. (This may be the most difficult to believe.)

Plaintiffs in patent infringement lawsuits invariably seek a permanent injunction – a court order barring the defendant from future infringement of the patent or patents in suit. Until recently, such an injunction was granted automatically to a prevailing plaintiff. No question.

The patent statute provides that damages for patent infringement begin to accrue when “the infringer was notified of the infringement.” Obviously, it is to the advantage of the patentee to establish the earliest possible date of notice.

On August 2, Tucson-based company Research Corporation Technologies (RCT) won a reversal of a federal court decision that had found RCT's six patents-in-suit unenforceable due to "inequitable conduct" and denied RCT's charges of patent infringement by Microsoft. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had also granted Microsoft a summary judgment finding the patents invalid and non-infringed.

RCT has also licensed its "Blue Noise Mask" digital imaging patents to HP, Lexmark, and Epson.

Microsoft continues to maintain that the RCT patents are invalid and not infringed by Windows or Office.

March 30, 2008 - Zap Media, an Atlanta-based media services company, is suing Apple for patent infringement. Zap's patent, U.S. patent no. 7020704, covers a "system and method for distributing media assets to user devices via a portal synchronized by said user devices."

The company claims that its patent is infringed by iPod and iTunes.