The Supreme Court on May 22, 2017 issued its highly anticipated decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, regarding the proper interpretation of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). In a unanimous...more
Patent infringers take note: clever defenses by ingenious litigation counsel may come too late to save you from an award of exemplary damages. On Monday, June 13, in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v....more
6/16/2016
/ 35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Abuse of Discretion ,
Enhanced Damages ,
Halo v Pulse ,
Highmark ,
Judicial Discretion ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Preponderance of the Evidence ,
SCOTUS ,
Standard of Proof ,
Standard of Review ,
Stryker v Zimmer ,
Willful Infringement
Significant amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure became effective on December 1, 2015 and include an important change to patent infringement pleading practice and the most notable revisions to the civil...more
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this week adopted a new standard governing divided infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). The new standard is likely to enhance...more
8/18/2015
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) ,
Covered Business Method Patents ,
Direct Infringement ,
Divided Infringement ,
En Banc Review ,
Induced Infringement ,
Joint Tortfeasors ,
Limelight v Akamai ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Reversal
Akamai’s Return to the Federal Circuit -
In the latest round of the long-running saga of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., a Federal Circuit panel on Wednesday reiterated that there is no direct...more
Implications of Limelight v. Akamai -
The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing infringement unless the induced party directly infringed the patent. This means, under...more