Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.

Intellectual Property Alert: Akamai v. Limelight: Federal Circuit Finds Direct Infringement of Method Claims Where Steps Performed by or Attributable to Single Entity

A unanimous en banc Federal Circuit held that, despite some of the claimed method steps being performed by Limelight’s customers, substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Limelight directly infringed a method claim…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: The USPTO Announces Additional Guidelines for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

On July 30, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued additional guidelines for use by USPTO personnel in determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. These additional guidelines follow the…more
| Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

PTAB Puts the Brakes on Applying the Same Element in a Reference to 2 Elements in a Claim

In a decision denying institution of inter partes review, the PTAB declined to let a single structure in an applied reference satisfy two elements in a challenged claim…more
| Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: The Import of Electronic Data: Federal Circuit Appears Unlikely to Affirm Commission’s Jurisdiction over Digital “Articles”

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) possesses unique powers under 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Section 337). Upon finding that a party engaged in “unfair acts,” e.g., patent or trademark infringement, the…more
| Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: Suprema, Inc. v. ITC: ITC Can Exclude, Under Inducement Theory, Imported Products That Only Infringe After Importation

On August 10, 2015, an en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the International Trade Commission’s interpretation of Section 337 was reasonable and therefore that the ITC has the authority to exclude, under a…more
| Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal District Court Affirms Cancellation of “REDSKINS” Marks on Summary Judgment and Holds that First Amendment Does Not Control

On July 8, 2015, the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the REDSKINS federal trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Constitutional Law, Indigenous Peoples, Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: Federal Circuit Holds Claims Indefinite Based on Prosecution History in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc.

On June 18, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit released its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. The case was on remand from the Supreme Court, which vacated the Federal…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Preparing For The Obvious At The PTAB

There is little debate that inter partes reviews have proven to be an effective means of challenging the validity of a patent. During the first two-and-a-half years, more than 73 percent of claims originally challenged in IPR…more
| Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Brulotte, “Green-Lights” Collecting Patent Royalties After Patents Expire

In an important decision for patent licensing freedom, on June 22, 2015, the United States Supreme Court cleared the way for spreading patent royalty payments after the expiration of patents, in some simple and other complex…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: USPTO Announces Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot Program

Yesterday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced the “Expedited Patent Appeal Pilot” to provide a temporary basis for an applicant to have an ex parte appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board accorded…more
| Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Alert: Akamai v. Limelight: Federal Circuit Limits Direct Infringement of Method Claims

On remand from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit held that Limelight did not directly infringe an asserted method claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) because the “sweeping notions of common-law tort liability” do not apply to…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: Apple v. Samsung: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Design Patent Principles Law

In a much anticipated opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Samsung on May 18, the design patent law with respect to remedies and the infringement test remains robust. Notably, and…more
| Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Intellectual Property Alert: The U.S. and Japan Join the Hague System

May 13, 2015 — Today, the United States and Japan will become contracting parties to the Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs. The Hague System allows the filing of a single international design…more
| Intellectual Property, International Law & Trade

No More Soup For You – PTAB Rejects Second IPR Petition Under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently denied an IPR petition under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d) because the petitioner’s arguments were substantially similar to those it made in an earlier IPR petition. Both petitions involved U.S…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

TTAB Appeal at USDC – Win or Lose – You Pay the USPTO Costs

On April 23, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (2-1) in the case of Shammas v. Focarino, that, win or lose, a party who files a U.S. district court appeal from a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board…more
| Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Showing 1-15 of 115 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 8
Contact

Ten South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606-7407, United States

  • 312.463.5000
  • 312.463.5001

Areas of Practice
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • D.C.
  • Massachusetts
  • Oregon
Number of Attorneys

50-100 Attorneys

This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
×