Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart PLLC
Newsletter – Volume 23, Issue 2
Share on Social
2022 Recap – Largest Patent Damages Awards
By Art Hallman
1. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp.: VLSI was awarded $948 million after a federal jury in Texas found that Intel infringed VLSI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,606,983 (“the ‘983 Patent”). The ‘983 Patent relates to microchip technology and, specifically, to improved computer processor performance via an improved transaction ordering policy in which individual occurrences of access requests can specify whether or not the associated transaction is to be performed in order. In lay terms, the technology improves computer performance by putting computer processor traffic “in the fast lane.” Less buffering means more binge watching!
2. Complete Genomics v. Illumina: Complete Genomics (“CG”) was awarded $333.8 million after a federal jury in Delaware found that Illumina infringed CG’s U.S. Patent No. 9,222,132 (“the ‘132 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 10,662,473 (“the ‘473 Patent”). The ‘132 Patent and the ‘473 Patent relate generally to DNA sequencing. These types of genetic sequencing technologies are used in research dedicated to treating a wide range of conditions and diseases, including autism, aging, and eating disorders.
3. Ravgen Inc. v. Laboratory Corporation of America: Ravgen was awarded $272.5 million after a federal jury in Texas found that Labcorp infringed Ravgen’s U.S. Patent No. 7,332,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”). The ‘277 Patent is directed towards methods for detection of genetic conditions like Down syndrome and noninvasive methods of detecting such conditions in utero. Safe methods for early detection of genetic conditions allow parents and health care professionals to better monitor and treat the conditions, providing better quality of life for parents and their children.
4. United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank: United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) was awarded $218 million after a federal jury in Texas found that PNC infringed USAA’s U.S. Patent No. 8,699,779, U.S. Patent No. 8,977,571, U.S. Patent No. 10,482,432, and U.S. Patent No. 10,621,559 (“the USAA Patents”). The USAA Patents relate generally to mobile banking technology for remote check deposit. Who doesn’t want to skip the long line at the bank?!
5. Trustees of Columbia University v. NortonLifeLock: Columbia University was awarded $185 million after a federal jury in Virginia found that Norton infringed Columbia University’s U.S. Patent No. 8,074,115 (“the ‘115 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,601,322 (the ‘322 Patent). These patents relate generally to groundbreaking cybersecurity safeguards. More specifically, they are directed towards methods and systems for detecting anomalous program executions. Early detection is key—especially when it comes to malware!
It seems the high stakes technologies of 2022 involved genetics, computing, and banking. We can’t wait to see what 2023 brings! Also, while 2022 may have been a down year for patent damages awards, 2022 saw a record number of published patent applications—417,922 patent applications published at the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2022. This is an encouraging sign that investment in innovation remains a priority.
Wishing you a happy 2023!
Art Hallman is an associate attorney at Fishman Stewart and practices in the fields of patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law. Before attending law school, he worked as an engineer in the oil field service industry and the automotive industry. He holds an B.S. degree in electrical engineering and an MBA.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
L.A.B. Golf aims to protect its innovations, and therefore its market position, owning three patents for its zero-torque design. The question now is whether L.A.B. Golf can withstand the wave of copycat designs.
One of his most famous songs, “Lose Yourself” was recently at the center of a lawsuit. In 2019, Eminem’s publishing company Eight Mile Style sued Spotify claiming that Spotify streamed a number of its musical compositions without proper licenses.
Our latest article tackles three common trademark questions: 1. Can I trademark my own name? 2. Can I trademark the name of a fictional character? 3. Can I trademark the name of a U.S. president or British royal?
One of the most common challenges is whether AI should be free to train on data that is protected by copyright and owned by third parties without first obtaining permission.
Like the titles of single creative works, character names do not generate trademark rights unless used for a series of creative works (meaning two or more). A year ago, Jane Wick, LLC filed a trademark application for the mark JANE WICK in logo format.
The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) recently published its latest report on AI and “copyrightability.” In short, the USCO considers only some AI-generated works to be sufficiently creative as to deserve copyright protection, and thus, registration.
We know that as of June 4, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued more than twelve million patents. We also know that more than 10,000 patents were in existence before the count began.
Back in the 1940’s assignments by independent contractors could be permanent and irrevocable. Things changed in 1976, when Congress overhauled the Copyright Act.
Generally, copyright protects the specific expression of ideas, such as the arrangement and presentation of visual elements, but it does not protect general concepts or styles.
In the age of the internet, memes are a universal language. A meme is a piece of content, typically an image, video, text, or a combination of these, that spreads rapidly across the internet, often with humorous, relatable, or satirical undertones.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
