Search Results for: 높은 적중율을 자랑하는 NCP-CI-Azure 100％시험패스 덤프 덤프는 Nutanix Certified Professional - Cloud Integration - Azure (NCP-CI-Azure v6.7) 시험패스의 조건 💙 《 www.itdumpskr.com 》의 무료 다운로드➤ NCP-CI-Azure ⮘페이지가 지금 열립니다NCP-CI-Azure시험덤프공부

Federal Circuit Upholds ITC Import Ban: Key Rulings on Storage Defense and Domestic Industry Requirements

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a US International Trade Commission (ITC) determination that Wuhan Healthgen violated Section 337 through importation of clinical-grade recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products that infringe Ventria Bioscience’s U.S. Patent No. 10,618,951. Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2023-1389 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 7, 2025).

The patentee in the case – Ventria / ExpressTec – is a small biotech company  operating out of Junction City Kansas.  Their asserted patent is directed to a cell culture media containing rHSA produced via plants genetically modified to include the human genes. The albumin is basically a protein food for growing human cells in artificial laboratory environments.  Traditionally, the albumin came from animal sources, such as blood serum, but the plant process has some easy to identify benefits.  A key feature of the patented invention is monomer purity. Ideally, the albumin will be in monomer form as opposed to forming dimers or other aggregated groups, and Ventria’s patent particularly requires “less than 2% aggregated albumin.”

Wuhan Healthgen has been competing in the market by supplying its own version of the product exported from its Chinese production facilities and Ventria took action – in the ITC seeking a trade exclusion order of the infringing product.  The ITC largely sided with the patentee.  In this post, I focus on the domestic industry requirement and particularly how it applies to small innovative US companies. (more…)

Application of Fifth Circuit’s Heightened § 1404(a) Standard in Patent Cases

Patent

by Dennis Crouch

In re VirtaMove, Corp., No. 2025-130 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025) (Google case); In re VirtaMove, Corp., No. 2025-138 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025) (Amazon case).

Federal Circuit has denied this pair of related mandamus actions.  In both cases, the patentee VirtaMove challenged venue transfer orders moving its patent infringement suits from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. As I discuss below, the non-precedential decisions have some interesting jurisdictional tension with recent Fifth Circuit law.

VirtaMove is a small Canadian software company holding patents on secure application containerization technology. VirtaMove sued Google LLC and Amazon Web Services in the Midland/Odessa Division of WDTX, alleging infringement of patents covering methods for migrating applications into portable, secure containers. Both defendants successfully moved to transfer under § 1404(a), with the district courts (Judge Counts in the Google case, Judge Albright in the Amazon case) finding that the Northern District of California was more convenient primarily due to the concentration of defendants' engineers involved in developing the accused products in the San Francisco Bay Area. VirtaMove's central argument on mandamus was that the district courts misapplied governing law by following Federal Circuit precedent rather than more recent Fifth Circuit authority that VirtaMove claimed established heightened standards for transfer.

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." I think of this as the "convenient forum rule" which is separate and distinct from the "proper" venue requirements of §§ 1391 and 1400(b). § 1404(a) allows courts to determine where the case should be tried for optimal convenience and judicial efficiency. Someone seeking to move a case from one location to another (or as here move-it-back) bears the burden of demonstrating that the proposed transferee forum is "clearly more convenient" than the current venue by analyzing private interest factors (convenience of parties and witnesses, location of evidence, costs of litigation) and public interest factors (administrative difficulties, court congestion, local interest in deciding local controversies, and familiarity with governing law). These factors are not found in the statute, but rather are derived from a variety of precedent.

The Clash Between Circuit Approaches

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Electrical and Computer Science Technologies Patent Attorney or Agent – Law Firm – Greenville, SC; Seattle, WA

, , , , ,

Dority & Manning, P.A. is seeking a patent attorney or agent with a specialization in the electrical and computer science arts to join one of our teams on the forefront of technology. Candidates can expect to work primarily on matters related to patent prosecution and litigation for Fortune 100 companies as well as other national and international clients. A successful candidate will offer 2+ years of experience with varying electrical and software technologies; a focus in artificial intelligence and machine learning would be ideal.

Do you enjoy engaging with a vibrant team, having the ability to provide input for key decisions, and having access to leadership training and professional development? Are you looking for a firm where you can make a direct impact by closely partnering with in-house counsel? Do you thrive in a casual and close-knit team atmosphere that offers unique mentorship opportunities?

Dority & Manning has developed a dynamic, energetic, and inclusive environment where all individuals are accepted, valued, empowered, and able to meet their highest potential. Our firm is a rapidly growing intellectual property boutique with a unique approach to legal service and business operations. Not only do we believe that success is built upon exceptional relationships – internally and externally, but we also offer a distinctive firm structure and innovative solutions tailored to individual client needs.

Our firm thrives on foundations of trust, openness, and integrity to build an environment of true collaboration. We aim to invest in our people, culture, and systems to create an atmosphere where all people grow and succeed. From start-up ventures to multinational, Fortune 100 corporations, Dority & Manning represents a diverse set of organizations in all aspects of intellectual property law. Our team works closely with high-technology clients developing advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, and other innovative technologies to secure patent protection and provide relevant strategic counsel.

Position Details:

  • Partner with the D&M team and in-house teams to develop and execute thoughtful and effective global IP strategies.
  • Draft and prosecute patent applications.
  • Draft opinions of counsel.
  • Conduct due diligence investigations and perform freedom-to-operate and landscape analyses.
  • Assist in key litigation activities.
  • Opportunities for strategic counseling through client-facing interactions.
    Qualifications
  • A degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Physics, or related fields of study and/or relevant experience.
  • Must be a member of the U.S. patent bar.
  • Minimum of 2 years of patent drafting and prosecution experience required.

Benefits:

  • A respectful, friendly, and energetic environment built on trust.
  • A culture that thrives on collaboration, transparency, and team building.
  • Immediate introduction and partnership with leading high-technology clients, including Fortune 100 companies.
  • Regular opportunities for travel and in-person client interactions.
  • Professional trainer and training program implemented to enhance each individual skill set.
  • Unique leadership and professional development opportunities provided.
  • Formal mentoring program.
  • Regular social gatherings and celebrations to build internal relationships and to support charitable causes that mean the most to our team.
  • Opportunities for client Secondments.
  • Emphasis on work/life balance.
  • Sit and stand desks for all employees.
  • No-meeting Wednesdays.
  • Casual attire.
  • 401k/Profit Sharing.
  • Employer Paid Benefits (100% of Medical for employee).

If this position resonates with you, we would love to speak with you. To apply, please email a resume to: bpray@dority-manning.com

Dority & Manning strongly values diverse talent and will continue to provide equal opportunities to all qualified applicants for competitive employment positions regardless of age, race, color, marital status, gender identity or origin, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, national origin, veteran status, or disability status.

Additional Info
Employer Type: Law Firm
Job Location: Greenville, SC; Seattle, WA

Women as Patentees

Academic Studies, Inventors, Patent

Patents are intended to lure potential inventors into the business of innovation.  The truth is, however, that very little is known about how patents really drive innovation.

Historically, only a very small number of women have obtained patents. Data from historic studies:

  • 1790 – 1895: About 1% were granted to women;
  • 1905 – 1921: About 1.4% were granted to women;
  • 1954: 1.5% of issued patents included women inventors;
  • 1977: 2.6% listed one or more women as inventors;
  • 1996: 9.2% listed one or more women as inventors.

Since patentees do not list their sex, all of these studies rely upon segregating inventors according to traditional first-names.

2006: In my own recent study, I looked at a sample of 150,000+ patents issued between 1999 and 2006.  I then made a list-ranking of first-names of first-listed inventors. Can anyone guess how many of of the top-100 inventor-names were traditionally female names???

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.