Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC

Contact
Share
Info
5445 Corporate Dr
Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098, United States
Phone: (248) 641-1600
Fax: (248) 641-0270
Areas of Practice
  • Appellate Practice
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Law & Trade
  • Litigation
  • Science, Computers, & Tech
Locations
Other U.S. Locations
  • Michigan
  • Missouri
  • Texas
  • Virginia
Number of Attorneys
100+ Attorneys

Merely Because Petitioner Changes its Mind is not Enough to Stop Inter Partes Reexamination

In In Re: AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., [2016-1830] (May 10. 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination in Inter Partes Reexamination, that the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,454,071, directed to methods of…more
 /  Administrative Law, Intellectual Property

Not Necessarily Unfair to Reply on Patent Owner’s Submissions in Obviousness Finding, but Board Failed to Provide Adequate Explanation

In Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler-Edelstahl GmbH & Co., KG, [2016-2233] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s Final Written Decision in IPR2015-00150, finding the Board did not set forth its reasoning in sufficient…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Written Description Lacking Where Nothing in the Specification Suggests Inventor Contemplated Claimed Invention

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, [2016-1143, 2016-1144](May 10, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in part the Board’s decision in Inter Partes Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,415,082. …more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Supreme Courts Reaffirms Fourco, and Limits Where Corporations Can Be Sued for Patent Infringement

In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, [16–341] (May 22, 2017), the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that for purposes of the patent venue statute (28 U.S.C. 1400(b)), a corporation only resides…more
 /  Business Organizations, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Failure to Provide an Unconditional Covenant Not to Sue Kept Case and Controversy Alive

In ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., [2016-1357] (May 16, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment invalidating claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. RE44153…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

One Year of the Defend Trade Secrets Act

May 16, 2017 marked the first anniversary of the Defend Trade Secrets Act. What has the year taught us about this new federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation? Here are the top 13 lessons from the first year…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Labor & Employment Law, Intellectual Property

Patent Owner Statements During an IPR Disclaimed Claim Scope

In Aylus Networks, Inc., v. Apple, [2016-1599] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE 44,412 on systems and methods for implementing digital home networks having a…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

In Determining Whether a Case “Stands Out,” It was Not Improper to Consider Patent Cases Generally

In Nova Chemicals Corp. (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Co., [2016-1576] (May 11, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s determination that the case was “exceptional” under 35 USC 285, and the award of $2.5 million in…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property

PTAB Provides Another Estoppel Datapoint — No Estoppel for Petitioner Using Its Own Documents

In Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, the estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) prevents the petitioner from challenging the validity of a patent in an IPR on any “ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

What’s the Flap Over the Unicorn Frappe?

On May 3, 2017, Montauk Juice Factory Inc. sued Starbucks Corporation in the Eastern District of New York, [1:17-cv-02678] alleging that Starbuck’s “UNICORN FRAPPUCCINO” infringed its “distinctive and famous” UNICORN LATTE. …more
 /  Communications & Media Law, Intellectual Property

Semicolons Strongly Indicate Each Step is Separate and Distinct; Confuse Most Non-Patent Lawyers

In In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1173] (May 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that §317(b) did not bar the reexamination and that the reexamined claims were invalid…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology

Estoppel Under 317(b) Always Applies on a Claim by Claim Basis, Just Like the Statute Says

In In Re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1092, 2016-1172] (May 5, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s affirmance of a reexamination determination that all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 was invalid…more
 /  Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property

Studios Fire Back: Fictional Publication Depicted in a Movie is Privileged Expressive Use

Following up a previous post about the February 2017 lawsuit filed by the Sporting Times against Orion Pictures for depicting a fictional magazine of the same title in a movie about the life of Bill “Spaceman” Lee, MGM has…more
 /  Art, Entertainment, & Sports Law, Civil Procedure, Communications & Media Law, Constitutional Law, Intellectual Property

Fair Use is Not Always Fair

Photographer TC Reiner sued Watkins Institute and its student Ryon Nishimori for copyright infringement when Nishimori incorporated one of Reiner’s copyrighted photographs into a mock advertisement for a classroom assignment and…more
 /  Art, Entertainment, & Sports Law, Civil Procedure, Education, Intellectual Property

A Sale is Still a Sale under the AIA

At least so far, the meaning of “on sale” under AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) has not changed from pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102(b) following a decision by the Federal Circuit in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,…more
 /  Civil Procedure, Commercial Law & Contracts, Intellectual Property, Science, Computers, & Technology
Showing 1-15 of 868 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 58
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 using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*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.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!