The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday in a case that could make it easier to render patents with vague language invalid as indefinite, a move that would provide a new weapon against so-called patent trolls but may put a wide range of patents at risk, attorneys say.
The justices agreed in January to hear an appeal by Nautilus Inc., which argues that the Federal Circuit's standard that patents are not invalid as indefinite unless they are "insolubly ambiguous" makes it too hard to invalidate patents with vague or confusing claims. Nautilus' position has found support from Google Inc. and others, which argue that the court should require greater clarity in patent claims in order to combat frivolous suits by nonpracticing entities, which they say often sue technology companies over vague software patents.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in case that pits traditional broadcast TV against new technology. Aereo says it's found a loophole in the law that allows it to send you live and recorded TV over the internet.
– In its continued service to clients involved in major shale plays, Haynes and Boone, LLP energy lawyers recently advised an Alta Mesa Holdings, LP subsidiary, Alta Mesa Eagle LLC, in its sale of Eagle Ford oil and gas properties for a sale price of $173 million, subject to customary purchase price adjustments.
The Haynes and Boone deal team was led by Houston Partner Buddy Clark
and included Houston Associate Austin Elam
In a dispute litigated from California to Oregon to the People’s Republic of China, Haynes and Boone, LLP lawyers have successfully defended a Chinese IP Firm’s trademark against the claims of its former U.S. marketing partner.
The latest victory for firm client AFD China Intellectual Property Law Office (AFD China) came March 28 after a three-day trial in an Oregon federal district court when a jury decided the former marketing agent, AFD USA, had no right to claim ownership of the “AFD” mark because AFD China was the first to use it in U.S. commerce.