Are websites legally responsible for content posted by their users?
Do I need permission to use images from Google on my website?
Patent Infringement Defense Leveraging Contested Proceedings
Implementing a Counterfeit Enforcement Program
Design Patents: New Implications from the Hague Agreement
Patent Litigation and the Proposed Innovation Act of 2013
Developing a Business Strategy that Deters Counterfeiters
Protecting Trade Secrets When Employees Depart
Polsinelli Podcast - Conducting Business in China
Are there going to be new generic top level domains available in the future?
Beastie Boys Sue; Law Prof's 'Head Spins'
Polsinelli Podcast - Generic Drugs to Market - What's the Climate in 2014?
The Building Blocks of a Technology Deal
Emerging Strategies for Protecting Global IP Rights
Starting a new business? Intellectual Property 101 Presented by Prof. Islam & PA Thomas Lewry
Warranty vs. Indemnity
What should my company be aware of when launching a new website?
Demonstratives in Post-Grant Proceedings
Video: Claim Contruction in Post-Grant Proceedings
One of your most important clients just called. She reports that one of her senior sales people quit a few months ago, and she just learned that the sales person has joined a large competitor. Panicking, your client wants to...more
The Federal Circuit's decision in the consolidated appeals of Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Actavis, Inc. and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. amply demonstrates the concept that you should be careful...more
U.S. Vinyl Manufacturing Corporation (“USV”) initiated an action for copyright infringement on March 12, 2014, against Colour & Design, Inc. (“Colour”), National Wallcovering, Inc. (“Wallcovering”), Larry and Michael Bixler...more
On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC.1 The Court held that the burden of persuasion for proving patent infringement remains with the patentee in a...more
By now, you’ve probably heard the agonized shrieks of your friendly neighborhood copyright lawyer, decrying the Ninth Circuit’s opinion Garcia v. Google. If you haven’t had the time or inclination to read the opinion, here is...more
Ninth Circuit issues amended opinion affirming denial of plaintiff broadcasting companies’ motion for preliminary injunction against Dish Network over Dish Network’s network television recording product, finding that...more
For nearly 150 years, it has been established that a patent holder (“patentee”) ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571...more
In a nine to zero decision authored by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that the...more
A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision authored by Justice Breyer, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of...more
A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more
The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more
Jan. 23, 2014 — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures (previously listed as Medtronic v. Boston Scientific), holding that the burden of proving...more
In terms of the question presented, the Supreme Court of the United States answered that when a licensee seeks declaratory judgment against a patentee, asserting that its products do not infringe the licensed patent, “the...more
Companies that participate in standard setting organizations (“SSOs”) typically agree to license any patents essential to practice the standard on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (“RAND” or, adding fair, “FRAND”...more
The 83rd Texas Legislature recently enacted Senate Bill 953 and created the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("TUTSA") in Chapter 134A of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. For companies wishing to defend their...more
In a case where the district court denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against certain Samsung smartphones, the Federal Circuit has remanded the matter to the district court in order to reconsider its...more
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled November 12, 2013, that a party seeking to obtain approval of a biosimilar could not avoid the process set forth in the Biologics Price...more
In LifeScan Scotland, Ltd. V. Shasta Technologies, LLC, the Federal Circuit found that LifeScan’s distribution of its One-Touch Ultra glucose meters exhausted its patent rights such that it could not prevent Shasta from...more
As the size, complexity, and interconnectedness of modern companies’ IT infrastructures has increased, so too has the risk of corporate espionage and cyber attacks targeting companies’ intellectual property. In-house and...more
On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. case (Supreme Court docket number 12-1128). The sole issue on appeal was who has the burden of proof on the issue...more
November 6, 2013 - On late Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Medtronic v. Boston Scientific to determine whether, in a declaratory judgment action brought by a patent licensee, the patent owner bears...more
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The sole issue to be determined is whether the burden of proof shifts in a declaratory judgment action...more
Plaintiffs Kim Laube & Co. ("Laube") brought this patent infringement action against Defendant Wahl Clipper Corp. ("Wahl") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,473,973 ("the '973 Patent"), which is titled "Disposable Cutting...more
A recent case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reaffirms the important principle that a franchisor, or any business, that seeks a preliminary injunction to prevent harm from a covenant breach...more
On August 9, 2013 the Federal Circuit decided Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16507 (Court of Appeals, August 9, 2013). Taurus IP (a non-practicing entity) accused the auto manufacturers...more
Find an Intellectual Property Author »
Back to Top