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

Inequitable conduct defense successful despite high standard

Inequitable conduct defense successful despite high standard

Inequitable conduct is a defense to patent infringement to avoid liability for patent infringement.  However, inequitable conduct also offers a way to introduce unfavorable facts about the patent owner, inventors, etc. to paint the plaintiff as a bad actor and not as someone that has helped society in bringing forth the invention protected by the […]

Read More →

Read More →

Uncorrected USPTO mistakes in a patent cuts off past damages

Uncorrected USPTO mistakes in a patent cuts off past damages

Immediately after issuance of a patent, it is useful to check that the claims are accurately printed on the patent.  The USPTO uses character recognition software which sometimes results in inconsistencies in the claims.  The following case illustrates a situation where the failure to check the accuracy of the claims resulted in the unenforceability of […]

Read More →

Read More →

Attacking patent claims as indefinite made easier

Attacking patent claims as indefinite made easier

In Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2014), the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent claim as being indefinite under a new standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Biosig v. Nautilus (S. Ct. April 28, 2014). Interval Licensing is instructional not just for evaluating indefiniteness under […]

Read More →

Read More →

Software patents questionable due to algorithm requirement

Software patents questionable due to algorithm requirement

For software patents including a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the patent application or patent must disclose an algorithm or structure for performing the claimed function. This is to satisfy the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph. The algorithm or structure need not be in any particular format but must simply be expressed as “any […]

Read More →

Read More →

Infringement reversed based on court’s new language after jury trial

Infringement reversed based on court’s new language after jury trial

In litigation, a court construes the requirements of a patent claim and instructs the jury on what the claims require for infringement. The jury must follow these instructions to decide if the defendant has infringed the patent claims at issue.  If the jury finds infringement, the court can reverse the jury’s finding if there is […]

Read More →

Read More →

SCOTUS reduces liability for indirect patent infringement

SCOTUS reduces liability for indirect patent infringement

The scope of patent protection of a patent is defined by the claims.  Ideally, the claims should be written in a variety of ways so that different entities along the distribution channel can be identified as direct infringers.  These entities include manufacturers, distributors, retailers and end users.  Each one of these entities may be sued […]

Read More →

Read More →

Courts encourage clarity at USPTO to combat patent trolls

Courts encourage clarity at USPTO to combat patent trolls

Recently, there has been a push for clarity in patents because non-practicing entities and patent trolls have been accused of taking patents with ambiguous claim terms and construing those ambiguous terms to cover things beyond what is disclosed in the patent.  Since patent litigation costs are very high and even prohibitive, many businesses would rather […]

Read More →

Read More →

Abstract ideas require something more for patent protection

Abstract ideas require something more for patent protection

Under U.S. patent laws, Section 101 states that “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.” Judicially, the courts have limited the breadth of Section 101 by […]

Read More →

Read More →

KSR distinguished making it harder to reject a claim

KSR distinguished making it harder to reject a claim

The KSR decision could have been construed very broadly so as to make all inventions obvious.  In the opinion, the Supreme Court held that rigid rules cannot override common sense when determining obviousness.  In its broadest terms, the examiner could merely state that a modification was obvious based on common sense, and thus deem the […]

Read More →

Read More →

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 →

© 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