James Yang

James Yang is a patent attorney whose practice encompasses all areas of intellectual property law including patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.

Author's Website

Everyone in the supply chain could be sued for patent infringement

Everyone in the supply chain could be sued for patent infringement

Patent owners can sue anyone up and down the chain of distribution for infringement of patent.  Manufacturers, distributors and end users are all possible litigants.  For example, the end user can be sued for using the patented invention.  The distributor can be sued for selling the patented invention. The manufacturer can be sued for making […]

Read More →

Read More →

Online communications can be prior art against patent

Online communications can be prior art against patent

Under U.S. patent laws, an application for patent must be filed within one year of the first public use, sale, offer for sale, or printed publication.   Otherwise, those activities will be considered prior art against any later filed patent application.  With the rise of communication over the Internet, these bars to patentability (i.e., public use, […]

Read More →

Read More →

Common ownership problems for those new to patents

Common ownership problems for those new to patents

For those new to protecting their inventions with patents, one of the more common issues that needs to be resolved is ownership.  Who owns the invention or patent?  A company may believe that it owns the rights to an invention.  However, a closer look at the law reveals that this may not be the case.  […]

Read More →

Read More →

Power given to district courts to stop abusive litigation tactics

Power given to district courts to stop abusive litigation tactics

In the United States, each party generally pays their own attorney fees.  Shifting attorney fees to the non-prevailing party is permitted in certain circumstances. For example, in patent litigation, fee shifting is permitted for exceptional cases.  35 U.S.C. Section 285 states that “the court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing […]

Read More →

Read More →

S.Ct. raises standard for definiteness in patent cases

S.Ct. raises standard for definiteness in patent cases

The claims in a patent are supposed to inform others about the scope of patent protection afforded under the patent so people know what the can and cannot be marketed regarding the patent.  In particular, the Patent Act requires that a patent specification “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming […]

Read More →

Read More →

S.Ct. places power back in hands of judges with fee shifting

S.Ct. places power back in hands of judges with fee shifting

The Supreme Court has made fee shifting (i.e., award of attorney’s fees) easier in patent cases reversing the framework laid out in Brooks Furniture for determining when a case is “exceptional”.  Now, under Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., (S.Ct. 2014), an exceptional case in which the court may, in its discretion, […]

Read More →

Read More →

Written description requirement for writing a patent application

Written description requirement for writing a patent application

A patent application is a well-crafted document which has many different requirements for it to be effective.  One of the requirements is the written description requirement.  The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure states that “to satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in […]

Read More →

Read More →

Claimed ranges shown to be obvious despite countervailing evidence

Claimed ranges shown to be obvious despite countervailing evidence

Sometimes it is very difficult to predict how the courts will decide whether claimed combinations are invalid for obviousness. In Hoffman v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2014), the Federal Circuit invalidated a number of claims directed to a method of administering a drug described with ranges as being obvious. The patent at issue was directed to […]

Read More →

Read More →

Patent owner can’t sue alleged infringer again on reexamined claims

Patent owner can’t sue alleged infringer again on reexamined claims

Patent owner can’t sue alleged infringer again on reexamined claims The following case illustrates a tension between the claim preclusion doctrine which bars relitigation of claims decided in earlier litigation between the parties (i.e., res judicata) and the reexamination procedure at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Claim preclusion provides that the parties to […]

Read More →

Read More →

Injunctions easier to obtain for small markets

Injunctions easier to obtain for small markets

Injunctions easier to obtain for small markets The primary right granted by the government through a patent is the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing the patented device into the United States.  Thus, a patent should normally allow you to obtain an injunction stopping your competitors from infringing […]

Read More →

Read More →

© 2014 James Yang | Terms of Use | Site Map
James Yang is an Orange County patent lawyer and welcomes potential clients throughout California including Orange County, Riverside County, Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Ana, Irvine, Orange, Anaheim, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Tustin, Brea, Fullerton, Buena Park, Mission Viejo, Lake Forest, Laguna Niguel, Stanton, San Clemente, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Cypress, Laguna Beach, Coto de Caza, Costa Mesa, Aliso Viejo, Ladera Ranch, Dana Point and Foothill Ranch.
Top