- The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, that the PTAB’s application of the one-year time limit for petitions for inter partes review, set out in 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), is not subject to...more
4/23/2020
/ § 314(d) ,
§ 315(b) ,
§314(a) ,
§314(b) ,
America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Judicial Review ,
Non-Appealable Decisions ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS ,
Thryv Inc v Click-To-Call Technologies LP ,
Time-Barred Claims ,
Vacated
• The Supreme Court in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. held 7-2 that because ION exported components of WesternGeco’s patented system in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2), WesternGeco was entitled to recover damages...more
6/26/2018
/ 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2) ,
35 U.S.C. § 284 ,
Appeals ,
Damages ,
Domestic Injury ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Sales ,
Lost Profits ,
Patent Act ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patents ,
Remand ,
SCOTUS ,
Vacated ,
WesternGeco LLC v Ion Geophysical Corporation
In a highly anticipated opinion significantly narrowing the first prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC unanimously held that a domestic...more
5/25/2017
/ Forum Selection ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Personal Jurisdiction ,
Primary Residence ,
Principal Place of Business ,
SCOTUS ,
State of Incorporation ,
TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods ,
Venue
If you read one thing ...
- The Supreme Court discarded the Federal Circuit’s heightened Seagate standard for awarding enhanced damages under the Patent Act.
- The new standard increases the chance of an...more
On June 2, 2014, in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-786, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that a defendant can be liable for inducing infringement...more
On June 2, 2014, in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s test for determining indefiniteness of a patent claim as “lack[ing] the precision that §...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated decisions concerning a district court’s authority to award attorney fees in “exceptional” patent cases under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Those two decisions provide greater...more