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

Abusive tactics backfires with potential attorney fees award

Abusive tactics backfires with potential attorney fees award

Bottom line: The standard for awarding attorney fees was lowered back in 2014 by the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. (2014).  (Click here for the Highmark case). Before 2014, obtaining an award of attorney fees was fairly difficult, even in egregious situations. Now, under the lowered standard, the tide […]

Read More →

Read More →

Patent Drafting Tip: Alternative embodiments create prior art

Patent Drafting Tip: Alternative embodiments create prior art

Bottom line: An application for patent generally focuses on the preferred embodiments of the invention but it may be prudent to also include alternative non-preferred embodiments. One reason for including these alternative embodiments is to provide a buffer zone around the preferred embodiments of the invention to prevent others from obtaining a patent on these […]

Read More →

Read More →

Patent drafting tip: be noncommittal in the specification

Patent drafting tip: be noncommittal in the specification

Bottom line: Characterizing the invention as “may be” having a particular feature is generally effective in maintaining the breadth of a claim. By being noncommittal, the courts are less likely to import those particular features as requirements into the claims of the patent. Patent claims can be narrowed based on statements made in the specification […]

Read More →

Read More →

3 Basic Concepts of Patent Infringement

3 Basic Concepts of Patent Infringement

A patent is a right of the patent owner to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing the invention into the United States.  A patent provides: an exclusionary right, not a right to do something; a remedy only for specific actions of others that infringe the exclusionary right; protection only in […]

Read More →

Read More →

Fickleness of patent litigation turns on a single letter in claim

Fickleness of patent litigation turns on a single letter in claim

Bottom line: The Federal Circuit construed the meaning of a phrase (i.e., a contact hole) which typically is construed to mean “one or more” to mean “two or more.” This case illustrates the fickleness of patent litigation and how the entire case could turn on not only one phrase in the claims but the varying […]

Read More →

Read More →

Patent exhaustion not implicated in licensing different aspects

Patent exhaustion not implicated in licensing different aspects

Bottom line: Claim sets that include independent claims directed to different types of entities (e.g., manufacturer v. end user, receiver v. transmitter, method v. apparatus) may enable the patent owner to license its patents to one entity without implicating patent exhaustion for a different entity. In Helferich v. NY Times (Fed. Cir. 2015), the patent […]

Read More →

Read More →

Using the word “invention” may narrow your patent protection

Using the word “invention” may narrow your patent protection

Bottom line: It  may be counter-intuitive, but use of the word “invention” when drafting a patent application is a disfavored practice.   For the most part, use of the word “invention” may narrow the patent protection afforded under a patent and may not broaden the scope of the claims.  The reason is that if a patent repeatedly […]

Read More →

Read More →

IPR an attractive alternative to litigation

IPR an attractive alternative to litigation

Bottom line: Defendants should strongly consider an Inter Partes Review (IPR), a proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when accused of patent infringement because it may be easier to invalidate the patent at the PTAB instead of at the Federal district court.  In […]

Read More →

Read More →

S.Ct. raises standard to reverse court’s claim construction

S.Ct. raises standard to reverse court’s claim construction

Bottom line: The importance of winning at the district court level for patent litigation has significantly increased due to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case, specifically, Teva Pharamceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (S.Ct. 2015). Since 1995, when a decision at the district court hinged on claim construction (i.e., defining the terms of a patent […]

Read More →

Read More →

Patent eligible software includes how-to of desired result

Patent eligible software includes how-to of desired result

Bottom line: DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. (Fed. Cir. 2014) instructs us that software claims that lean towards being labeled an abstract concept may transition from being an unpatentable to patentable provided that the claims recite the “desired result” (i.e. benefit) and the “how” of achieving the desired result. One claiming approach may be […]

Read More →

Read More →

© 2015 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