Volume 23, Issue 2 Surveys

South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018)

By Christopher J. Martinez

Wayfair, Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., and Newegg, Inc., (collectively “Respondents”) are all major online retailers that operate throughout the United States. Wayfair and Overstock.com are both online retailers that sell home goods. Their 2017 net revenues were more than $4.7 billion and $1.7 billion respectively.1 Newegg, also an online retailer, features electronics. Respondents neither have employees nor real estate in South Dakota.

View PDF – Martinez_South Dakota v Wayfair

Berkheimer v. HP Inc.
881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

By Alexis Ramsey

This case arose from an infringement claim of the U.S. Patent 7,447,713 (“Patent 713”) which is a patent that relates to processing and archiving files in a digital asset management system. The system organizes the files into objects and tags the objects to create relationships between them. The system then compares those objects to pre-coded rules to find any variations. The system can reduce redundant texts and graphics, which decreases storage costs and increases overall operating efficiency. It also allows mass editing of the objects with a find-and-edit process.

View PDF – Ramsey_Berkheimer v HP

SAS Inst., Inc. v. Iancu 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018)

By Chekwume Ufoegbune

In 2011, Congress established a new mechanism for cancelling patent claims, called “inter partes review.”1 Congress created inter partes review to allow third parties to dispute previously issued patent claims in a judicial process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). To initiate an inter partes review, a party must file a petition identifying the disputed claims and the grounds for challenging those claims. The patent owner then has an opportunity to file a response to that petition. If the Director of the Patent Office believes there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will be successful with respect to at least one of the challenged claims, then the Director will decide whether to institute an inter partes review based on the petition. If an inter partes review is instituted and not dismissed, at the end of the litigation the Director “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of “any” patent claim challenged by the petitioner.”

View PDF – Ufoegbune_SAST Inc v Iancu