MONTHLY INSIGHTS | NOVEMBER 2020
A Confirmation of the Importance of Properly Assigning the Right to Claim Priority for Validly Transferring an Entitlement to Claim Priority Before the EPO
The reasons underlying the long-awaited decision T844/17 revoking European patent EP 2 771 468 (the “CRISPR-Cas9 patent”) have been rendered by the European Patent Office Board of Appeals.  Although the decision may appear shocking because the patent at issue is considered to be a pioneer patent of one of the most important biotech inventions of our time, the decision is nevertheless in line with European Patent Office practice as established at least since decisions T 328/07 and T 788/05 relating to the transfer of the right of priority.
Lessons From Two Gigantic Trade Secret Misappropriation Verdicts
The IP legal community has recently witnessed truly extraordinary damages awards in two trade secret misappropriation cases. In Epic Sys. v. Tata Consultancy Servs., the jury awarded $940 million. In Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. v. Trizetto Group, the jury awarded $855 million. Both cases serve as important object lessons for companies dealing with information that may be protectable trade secrets. READ MORE
Impact of PTAB’s Decision in RPX v. AIT
-- Has RPX Filed Its Last IPR Petition?
In its October 2020 decision in RPX Corp. v. Applications In Internet Time, LLC, the Patent Trial & Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has cast considerable doubt on the ability of member-supported defensive patent aggregators such as RPX, Askeladden, and Unified Patents to file petitions for Inter Partes Review and Post-Grant Review without naming one or more of their members who will benefit from the challenges as real parties in interest (“RPI”) and/or privies of the petitioner.
Patent Eligibility of Claims Directed to Printed Matter:
Clarification or Confusion?
In C R Bard Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) held for the first time that “a claim may be found patent ineligible under § 101 on the grounds that it is directed solely to non-functional printed matter and the claim contains no additional inventive concept,” combining the traditional “printed matter” doctrine of patent ineligibility with the modern Alice analytical framework, potentially sowing even more confusion in the area of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101.
RECOGNITION
Best Law Firm 2021
Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP was honored to be ranked a 2021 "Best Law Firm" by Best Lawyers®. OBWB was recognized in the following categories:
 
Metropolitan Tier 1 (Houston) 
Patent Law
Metropolitan Tier 2 (Houston) 
Litigation - Patent
Super Lawyers

We congratulate OBWB Partner Carlyn Burton, and Global Chair Jonathan Osha on their inclusion on the 2020 Texas Super Lawyers List. Only 5% of attorneys evaluated make the selection for the annual list which recognizes lawyers who have distinguished themselves as "outstanding attorneys."
OBWB RANKED A TOP WORKPLACE
We are pleased to announce that the OBWB Houston office—the firm's HQ—was recently recognized as a "2020 Top Workplace" by the Houston Chronicle.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
From all of us at Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP,
we wish you and yours a happy and safe holiday season.