Deepak Malhotra, JD, BSEE
Inventor and US Patent Attorney
Are you looking for a partner to help protect your ideas?
Let me introduce myself. I am Deepak Malhotra. I have over 20 years experience in patent preparation and prosecution, and have successfully prosecuted hundreds of patent applications to allowance. I have worked on large portfolios for many Fortune 500 companies. Importantly, I am dedicated to strong customer service. That’s not something you experience much in the legal world – but I believe you deserve timeliness as well as quality.
(By continuing, you agree that you have read, understood, and agree to this Disclaimer and Privacy Policy.)
Software Patent Lawyer, Electronics Patent Attorney
Deepak Malhotra, JD, BSEE has worked extensively with various technologies including software, RF communications, sensors, smart cards, ESD protection, tape drivers, servo systems, printers, static memory cells, dynamic memory cells, database, publishing systems, virtual reality, wafer production methods, wafer polishing, antenna diversity systems, RF collision arbitration systems, marketing systems, electron multipliers, microwave electronics, digital clock recovery loops, secure network authentication systems, user interfaces, and more. Malhotra Law Firm, PLLC was a minority certified patent law firm, certified by the Northwest Mountain Minority Supplier Development Council.
Malhotra Law Firm, PLLC has experience in:
- Protecting electrical, electronics, and mechanical inventions
- Assisting venture-capital funded start ups & Fortune 500 companies
- Helping foreign companies secure intellectual property protection in the U.S.
- Protecting software inventions with software patents
- International protection of inventions
Patents
In the language of the statute, any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvements thereof, may obtain a patent,” subject to the conditions and requirements of the law. These classes of subject matter taken together include practically everything made by man and the processes for making them.
Trademarks
The primary function of a trademark is to indicate origin. However, trademarks also serve to guarantee the quality of the goods or services and, through advertising, serve to create and maintain demand. Rights in a trademark are acquired by use or applying for a federal trademark registration before use.
Business Method Patent Considerations
Attitudes towards business method patents have swung back and forth like a pendulum but recently the Supreme Court has refused to deem business methods patent ineligible. Business methods are generally eligible for patent protection if they pass a “Mayo/Alice” test. The first part of the test is to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea, a law of nature or a natural phenomenon (i.e., a judicial exception). If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the second part of the Mayo test is to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Many inventions that are thought to be business method inventions are really what I consider to be software inventions.
Software Patents
Like it or not, software patents are here to stay! Instead of hoping that they go away, your best defense against future potential infringement threats by others is to have an arsenal of your own. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case known as Alice v. CLS, held that using a computer to automate a well known financial method is an unpatentable abstract idea. So what types of software inventions are patent-eligible?
How to Protect Phone Apps
Are you a smart phone app developer? If so, you will want to know what forms of intellectual property are available for protecting smart phone apps.
Provisional Patent Applications
The United States has a form of patent application called a Provisional Patent Application. Some people feel that these are an easy and inexpensive way to obtain a filing date and some patent rights, but they are usually unaware of the risks and downside.
Important Changes to U.S. Patent Law: America Invents Act (AIA)
The United States switched from a First-to-Invent system to a First-to-File system. That makes it important to file patent applications sooner rather than later.
Conducting A Patent Novelty Search
A thorough patent search is an enormous undertaking. However, you can start with a novelty search that covers the most likely languages and places.
The History of Software Patents Blog
IOENGINE, LLC v INGENICO INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2024
IOENGINE, LLC appealed decisions of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Office’s Patent Trial and Appeals Board that found unpatentable certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,539,047; 9,059,969; and 9,774,703. The patents relate to a tunneling client access point (TCAP) that is a “highly secure, portable, power efficient storage and…
USC IP PARTNERSHIP V META , FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
USC brought suit for infringement against Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc.), asserting that its “News Feed” feature infringes claims 1–17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,645,300. The software patent relates to a search engine software method for predicting which webpages to recommend to a web visitor based on inferences of…
TRINITY INFO MEDIA, LLC V. COVALENT, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
Trinity Info Media, LLC sued Covalent, Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,087,321 and 10,936,685 relating to methods and systems for connecting users based on their answers to polling questions. U.S. Patent No. 9,087,321 teaches that its claimed invention is “directed to a poll-based networking system that connects users…
HANTZ SOFTWARE, LLC, V SAGE INTACCT, INC., FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
Any ineligibility judgment should apply to only claims asserted in a complaint if held patent-ineligible after a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Hantz sued Sage alleging that Sage infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,055,559 and 8,055,560. Sage moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a…
HAWK TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, LLC, V CASTLE RETAIL, LLC, FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2023 (SOFTWARE PATENTS)
A multi-format digital video product system capable of maintaining full-bandwidth resolution while providing professional quality editing and manipulation of images, which is capable of conserving bandwidth while preserving data is not patent-eligible. Appellant Hawk Technology Systems, LLC sued Appellee Castle Retail, LLC in the Western District of Tennessee for patent…
Latest News
Orange Book Device Patent Listings: Understanding Teva v. Amneal
by Dennis Crouch
In a major decision clarifying the scope of Orange Book patent listings, the Federal Circuit has ruled that device patents must claim at least the active ingredient to be properly listed. Teva Branded Pharm. Prods. R&D, Inc. v. Amneal Pharms. of N.Y., LLC, No. 24-1936, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 2923018 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2024). The court rejected Teva's attempt to list patents covering only inhaler components, explaining that the listing statute requires patents to "claim the drug" - which means they must particularly point out and distinctly claim at least the active pharmaceutical ingredient.
[O]ur analysis of the numerous relevant statutory provisions and the relevant case law leads us to only one conclusion: To list a patent in the Orange Book, that patent must, among other things, claim the drug for which the applicant submitted the application and for which the application was approved. And to claim that drug, the patent must claim at least the active ingredient. Thus, patents claiming just the device components of the product approved in an NDA do not meet the listing requirement of claiming the drug for which the applicant submitted the application.
Federal Circuit Affirms $95 Million Verdict in E-Cigarette Patent Battle Between Altria and Reynolds
by Dennis Crouch
The Federal Circuit's December 19, 2024 decision in Altria (Philip Morris) v. R.J. Reynolds offers important guidance on patent damages methodology while potentially previewing issues soon to be addressed en banc in EcoFactor v. Google. The case centered on Reynolds' VUSE Alto e-cigarette product and its infringement of three Altria patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 10,299,517, 10,485,269, and 10,492,541. While the court addressed multiple issues, I want to focus here on the damages analysis - particularly regarding comparable licenses and apportionment. Although the case is non-precedential, it includes both a majority opinion (authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Reyna) and a dissent (by Judge Bryson). Like Judge Reyna's decision in EcoFactor, the case involves the use of lump-sum licenses to create a running royalty calculation, as well as the proper approach to apportioning damages so that the award is for the use of the patented invention.
The damages dispute focused primarily on how Altria's expert derived a 5.25% royalty rate from comparable license agreements, particularly a license between Fontem and Nu Mark. Under this agreement, Nu Mark paid Fontem a $43 million lump sum for rights to practice Fontem's patents through 2030.
The RESTORE Patent Rights Act: One Little Sentence that Could Change Everything
by Dennis Crouch
The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property recently held a new hearing focusing on the RESTORE Patent Rights Act, a deceptively simple one-sentence bill that could dramatically reshape patent enforcement in the United States. The hearing highlighted the stark divide between those who believe stronger injunctive relief is needed to protect patent rights and those who warn that presumptive injunctions could harm innovation.
At its core, the RESTORE Act would establish a rebuttable presumption that courts should grant permanent injunctions when patent infringement is found. The key language is as follows:
If . . . the court enters a final judgment finding infringement of a right secured by patent, the patent owner shall be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the court should grant a permanent injunction with respect to that infringing conduct.
This would partially reverse the Supreme Court’s 15-year-old decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) which eliminated the near-automatic granting of injunctions in patent cases and instead required courts to apply a four-factor test considering irreparable harm, adequacy of monetary damages, balance of hardships, and the public interest.
While one of only three Electrical Engineer attorneys at his previous firm, the firm was ranked #2 in the U.S. for quality of Electrical Patents by PatentRatings, LLC. Deepak Malhotra has developed relationships with litigators and has assisted clients with aggressive enforcement of intellectual property. Software patents, business method patents, electrical patents, and mechanical patents are his specialties.
Deepak Malhotra Is Not Just A Patent Attorney,
He Is An Inventor Too, With Two U.S. Patents In His Name.