Call Tucker IP Today! 954.204.0444 or 305.423.9713|info@TuckeripLaw.com
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Linkedin

Yearly Archives: 2014

Home/2014

Basics of Design Patent Law

My patent law office often receives calls from inventors seeking to protect their invention but are unsure whether they should file a utility patent or a design patent. Utility patents can protect the structure and function of the invention, whereas a design patent protects the ornamental design of an entire article or just a portion of the article. Design patents can also protect ornamentation applied to an article by filing a design application claiming just the surface ornamentation. Unlike utility patents, design patents are limited to […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:13+00:00 December 25th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on Basics of Design Patent Law
Read More

NVIDIA Sues Samsung through its Patent Attorneys

NVIDIA SUES SAMSUNG In an unexpected move and offensive move, NVIDIA filed patent complaints against Samsung and Qualcomm. While NVIDIA is regularly involved in patent lawsuits, the cases are typically defensive in nature, such as the patent sued initiated by […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 November 12th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on NVIDIA Sues Samsung through its Patent Attorneys
Read More

Patent Attorney Review of Alice Corporation PTY LTD v. CLS Bank International, et al.

The question that the Patent Attorney for the Defense raised before the Court is whether the particular computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” by using a third-party intermediary are patent eligible pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, or are instead drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The Court held that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The District Court found the claims to be ineligible because the patent claims were directed to “employing a neutral intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations in order to minimize risk.” To understand what is patent eligible subject matter, one must first look at Section 101 of the Patent Act. The act provides: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. An established principle of patent law has long held that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas do not rise to the level of patent eligible subject matter. In fact, this is one of the oldest principles in United States law, dating back to over 150 years. The law was formed in this manner to prevent monopolization of patent rights that would impede on progress and innovation. For example, patenting of a mathematical equation would significantly impede the progress of math and science. But the question then becomes what is a law of nature, natural phenomena, and an abstract idea? The Supreme Court has established a two part test for determining whether an idea is an abstract idea or patent eligible subject matter. The Court determined [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 November 12th, 2014|Patents|Comments Off on Patent Attorney Review of Alice Corporation PTY LTD v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Read More

Personal Injury Jury Instructions

PERSONAL INJURY JURY INSTRUCTIONS When considering how much to demand for a personal injury, your accident attorney will review the amount of damage that you have incurred, and will continue to incur in the future. Medical bills, lost wages, and future medical bills are examples of the types of damage that is recoverable. Insurance adjusters are not considering the types of instructions levied to the Jury, but attorneys should when contemplating the types of compensation that will or could be awarded. § 501.1 Personal Injury and Property Damages When it is proven during a trial that Defendant is liable for the accident, the Court instructs the Jury write on the verdict form, in dollars, the total amount of loss, injury, or damage which the greater weight of the evidence shows will fairly and adequately compensate him or her for the loss, injury, or damage, including any damages that he or she is reasonably certain to […]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 6th, 2014|Car Accident, Civil Litigation, Personal Injury, Slip & Fall|Comments Off on Personal Injury Jury Instructions
Read More

Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran

New Uninsured Motorist Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court Turning to the Florida Supreme Court, our attention is brought to a case involving uninsured motorist policies and compulsory medical examinations (“EUOs”). The question before the Court was: [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent="yes" overflow="visible"][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type="1_1" background_position="left top" background_color="" border_size="" border_color="" border_style="solid" spacing="yes" background_image="" background_repeat="no-repeat" padding="" margin_top="0px" margin_bottom="0px" class="" id="" animation_type="" animation_speed="0.3" animation_direction="left" hide_on_mobile="no" center_content="no" min_height="none"][fusion_tagline_box backgroundcolor="" shadow="yes" shadowopacity="1" border="1px" bordercolor="" highlightposition="left" content_alignment="left" link="" linktarget="_self" button_size="small" button_shape="square" button_type="flat" buttoncolor="" button="" title="" description="WHEN AN INSURED BREACHES A COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION PROVISION IN AN UNINSURED MOTORIST CONTRACT, DOES THE INSURED FORFEIT BENEFITS UNDER THE CONTRACT WITHOUT REGARD TO PREJUDICE? IF PREJUDICE MUST BE CONSIDERED, WHO BEARS THE BURDEN OF PLEADING AND PROVING THAT ISSUE?" animation_type="0" animation_direction="down" animation_speed="0.1" class="" id=""][/fusion_tagline_box]The Supreme Court answered in the negative for the first part of the issue presented. For the second part of the question, the Court held that the insurer pleading the affirmative defense has the burden of pleading and proving prejudice. The facts go as follows. The Insured held a $100K underinsured motorist policy with State Farm Automobile Insurance Company to cover for personal injury and car accidents. Due to estimated damages at $3.5 million, it should come as no surprise that the insured requested the entire $100K. Because it reached the Supreme Court of Florida, it should be immediately clear that State Farm did not tender the policy limits. Instead, State Farm attempted to set a compulsory medical examination (CME) with a doctor that the insured also attempted to schedule an appointment with. For unclear reasons, the policy holder ultimately declined to attend the CME and simply filed a lawsuit. The trial court in the Fifth District reviewed a summary judgment request that argued [...]

By | 2017-05-18T18:53:16+00:00 August 5th, 2014|Car Accident, NEWS|Comments Off on Accident Attorney Review of State Farm v. Curran
Read More