News & Analysis as of

Evidence in Support of Petition for Venue Transfer Must Be Sufficiently Specific - In re Apple Inc.; In re Barnes & Noble

In two decisions from identical panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus petitions seeking to direct two district courts to vacate their denials of petitioners’ motions to transfer their...more

A “Program” Is Just a Set of Instructions - Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

In a case essentially decided on a single disputed claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a narrow construction of the claim term “program” and construed the term, consistent with its...more

Core Issues - New Patents in the World of Apples

When one speaks of an “apple” and patentable technology in the same breath, thoughts naturally turn toward Silicon Valley and Steve Jobs’ storied company. Yet, in Wenatchee, Washington (the “Apple Capital of the World”), and...more

Institution Decisions on March 26, 2014

Institution Decisions - The Board instituted an inter partes review in Apple Inc. v. PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC., IPR 2013-00596, Paper 9 (March 26, 2014) of claims 24, 32, 70, 81, 82, and 86 (all of the challenged...more

VirnetX v. Apple: Court Grants Enhanced Ongoing Royalty Based on Disparity Between Position at Trial and Position Post-Judgment on...

On August 11, 2010, VirnetX filed suit alleging that Apple and several other defendants infringed several U.S. Patents, which generally describe a method for transparently creating a virtual private network ("VPN") between a...more

So, You've Just Read About Someone Getting a Patent

A day does not go by without a new article about a company or individual obtaining a patent. A company itself may be behind an article because it wants to hype its technical achievements, as was the case with “Powerhouse...more

Emblaze v. Apple: Court Declines to Stay the Case Pending the United States Supreme Court's Decision in Akamai v. Limelight...

In this patent infringement action between Emblaze and Apple, Apple filed a motion to stay the case pending the recent grant of certiorari in Akamai v. Limelight Networks. In Akamai, a divided en banc Federal Circuit panel...more

Potter Voice v. Apple: Claims for Willfulness Survive Motion to Dismiss Where Siri Inventors Allegedly Knew of Patent Prior to...

Potter Voice filed a patent infringement action against Apple, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,729,659 (the '659 patent) through Apple products containing Siri. In 2010, Apple acquired a corporation called Siri,...more

Communication That Was Business Communication Could Not Be Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege But Could be Protected by...

Flatworld Interactives ("Flatworld") filed a patent infringement action against Apple Inc. ("Apple"). During the litigation, Apple sought the production of several documents that Flatworld claimed were protected by the...more

Federal Circuit Review - December 2013

Apple Awarded Permanent Injunction - In Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Appeal No. 13-1129, the Federal Circuit vacated denial of a permanent injunction with respect to Apple’s utility patents and affirmed denial...more

Business Litigation Report -- December 2013

In This Issue: Firm News: ..Quinn Emanuel London Sweeps in Legal 500’s United Kingdom Awards 2013 ..Quinn Emanuel Named to Law360’s List of the “Most Feared Plaintiffs’ Firms” and The National Law Journal’s...more

Developments in Patent Law 2013; The D.C. Bar Year in Review

In this article: - Patentability, Validity, and Procurement of Patents - Interpretation and Infringement of Patents - Enforcement of Patents - Patents at the U.S. Supreme Court - Excerpt...more

Apple, Inc. - A Case Study in Successful Exploitation of Design and Innovation

Some of the world’s strongest consumer products companies have achieved this success by harmoniously integrating technical innovation and distinctive product design. Worldwide brands such as Bang & OlufsenTM are built on...more

Apple v. Samsung: District Court Denies Samsung's Emergency Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination of Apple's Patent

In the continuing battle between Apple and Samsung, Samsung recently filed an emergency motion to stay pending reexamination of an Apple patent. To analyze whether the stay was appropriate, the district court provided an...more

Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter #34

We are pleased to present the 34th edition of the Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter. This month, we highlight news that will have an impact on business and litigation, including articles and links...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 11, November 2013

Appellate Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish In The Apple vs. Samsung Smart Phone Wars - A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the district court was within its...more

Appellate Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish in the Apple vs. Samsung Smartphone Wars

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

Apple v. Samsung: District Court Strikes Part of Samsung's Expert's Report on Damages

As Apple and Samsung prepare for a new trial on damages, Apple filed a motion to exclude part of the damage calculation set forth in Samsung's updated expert report on damages. In particular, Apple moved to exclude the damage...more

Apple v. Samsung: Court Orders Investigation into Potential Protective Order Violation by Samsung

As Apple and Samsung head toward yet another trial, Apple filed a motion for sanctions, accusing Samsung of violating the protective order in the case. Apple's motion asserted that Samsung's counsel had improperly shared...more

NetAirus v. Apple: District Court Strikes Survey Expert Where Survey Expert's Methodology Made No Effort to Shield Respondents...

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff NetAirus Technologies, LLC ("NetAirus") asserted that Apple infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,103,380 (the "'380 Patent"). The '380 Patent claims methods in which a "handset unit [ ]...more

Federal Circuit Review - Volume 3 | Issue 9 September 2013

In This Issue: • Smartphone War Update: Some of Apple’s Patents Survive Invalidity Challenge • Sale by Foreign Supplier Invalidated Patent • District Court Abused Discretion in Refusing to Keep Confidential...more

The International Trade Commission: Easier Injunctive Relief-Except for Standard-Essential Patent Holders

Earlier this summer, the Obama administration dealt a blow to Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) holders by reversing an International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order granted in favor of an SEP holder. This action...more

Softview v. Apple: District Court Grants Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Even Though It Had Denied Previous Request for Stay...

In this patent infringement action, a number of the defendants moved to stay the case pending an Inter Partes Review ("IPR") of the patent-in-suit. The district court had previously denied a motion to stay pending a previous...more

USTR Rejects Import Ban On Apple Inc. Products

For the first time in 26 years, the White House exercised its veto authority over an International Trade Commission ("ITC") Exclusion Order. On June 4, 2013, the ITC determined in Investigation No. 337-TA-794 that Apple had...more

Business Litigation Report -- August 2013

In This Issue: Main Article: ..Remedying Cyber Attacks Through Trade Secret Claims at the ITC Practice Area Notes: ..Appellate Practice Update ..Arbitration Practice Update ..Class Action Litigation...more

47 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2