Steve Maule

With administrative changes potentially on the horizon, President Trump’s attempts to revoke protections for Internet service providers granted by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are looking uncertain. A recent Supreme Court decision addressing section 230, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, suggests changes for section 230 may be coming, even if no legislative or executive actions are taken. On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Malwarebytes’s petition… Show more

With administrative changes potentially on the horizon, President Trump’s attempts to revoke protections for Internet service providers granted by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act are looking uncertain. A recent Supreme Court decision addressing section 230, Malwarebytes, Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC, suggests changes for section 230 may be coming, even if no legislative or executive actions are taken. On October 13, 2020, the Supreme Court denied Malwarebytes’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Malwarebytes had requested review of the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not immunize Malwarebytes from Enigma’s anticompetitive conduct claims. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas only briefly addressed the decision to not revisit the Ninth Circuit’s decision and directed the remainder of his comments to the “questionable precedent” created by the lower courts’ emphasis on “nontextual arguments when interpreting § 230.” Further, he suggested that, when appropriate, the Court “consider whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by Internet platforms,” which could impact both plaintiffs and defendants involved in litigation regarding Internet services. Show less

To best serve startups, IP practitioners should be stubborn in their pursuit of solutions for startups, yet flexible and holistic in assessing the specific legal strategies and solutions suitable for each company..., there is never a one-size-fits-all solution.

In August, the Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the bar on the defense of assignor estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by designating the decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding System Ltd. precedential. Athena, the ninth precedential decision since the passage of the AIA, "determines the doctrine of assignor estoppel is not an exception to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a)." This designation follows the Federal Circuit's dismissal on appeal for lack of jurisdiction to… Show more

In August, the Patent and Trademark Office affirmed the bar on the defense of assignor estoppel in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings by designating the decision in Athena Automation Ltd. v. Husky Injection Molding System Ltd. precedential. Athena, the ninth precedential decision since the passage of the AIA, "determines the doctrine of assignor estoppel is not an exception to 35 U.S.C. § 311(a)." This designation follows the Federal Circuit's dismissal on appeal for lack of jurisdiction to review the PTAB's decision. Show less

In the past few months, the Federal Circuit decided two cases addressing the issue of divided patent infringement in the healthcare field. In both Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the Akamai standard for divided infringement to determine whether patient conduct may be attributed to a physician or third party when determining liability. Although the outcomes differ, these cases taken together provide some… Show more

In the past few months, the Federal Circuit decided two cases addressing the issue of divided patent infringement in the healthcare field. In both Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the Akamai standard for divided infringement to determine whether patient conduct may be attributed to a physician or third party when determining liability. Although the outcomes differ, these cases taken together provide some additional guidance for evaluating divided infringement under the Akamai standard. Show less