News & Analysis as of

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung's Invalidity Challenge to Apple's Patents Denied Where Legal Theory Was Not Disclosed until after Trial

After the jury trial between Apple and Samsung, and shortly before the July 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested leave to file supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of two of Apple's...more

Silicon Valley x Fashion District = Blurred Lines

Growing up in the 80s, it’s amazing how both fashion and technology have evolved since Scrunchies and Commodore 64s – although a quite separate evolution. I can’t recall a fashionable pager (really, go try to find one), or a...more

Patent Filings, Decisions, Dispositions and Rehearings on September 3, 2014

Institution Decisions - In NeuLion, Inc. v. Cascades Ventures, Inv., IPR2014-00526, Paper 23 (September 3, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,236....more

IP Newsflash - August 2014 #5

Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction Denied - After the court found that Samsung infringed one of Apple’s patents on summary judgment and a jury found that Samsung infringed two others, Apple filed a motion for a...more

Claim Scope Based on Claim Construction Submitted in IDS

Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc. - Addressing the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement, finding...more

A Patent Owner's Preliminary Response Must Rebut Statement Of Material Facts In The Petition

Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings are proving to be a highly cost efficient means to challenge patent claims as either lacking novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or as being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. However, a...more

Indemnity Agreement Does Not Equate to a “Real Party in Interest” to Create Time-Bar for Inter Partes Review

Apple v. Achates Reference Publishing - The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, the Board) has concluded that an inter partes review of a patent is not time-barred if a petition was filed more than one year after the...more

35 U.S.C. § 315(b) Time-Bar Period Starts Running with 1st Complaint

35 U.S.C. § 315(b) requires that an IPR is barred if the petition is filed more than a year after the date which petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent. In Apple Inc. v. Vernetx, Inc. and...more

Apple v. Samsung: Court Denies Samsung's Request for Discovery Based on Apple's Alleged Disclosure of Confidential Information

In the ongoing patent battle between Samsung and Apple, Samsung, trying to turn the tables on Apple, filed a motion for sanctions based on Apple's disclosure of confidential information. The court had previously sanctioned...more

Golden Bridge v. Apple: No Third Bite at the Apple as Damage Expert Excluded After Two Failed Reports and Where Trial Was Already...

Two weeks earlier, the court excluded the expert opinion and testimony of Plaintiff Golden Bridge Technology's ("GBT") damages expert. Nonetheless, the court gave GBT one week to submit a new report based on a new theory....more

IP Newsflash - June 2014 #2

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - FRCP 19(a) Cannot Be Used to Involuntarily Join an Unwilling Patent Co-Owner to Infringement Litigation: On June 6, 2014, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District of New...more

FlatWorld v. Apple: Motion to Vacate Claim Construction Denied Even after Parties Reach Settlement

After the district court issued a Markman ruling, the parties informed the court that they had reached an agreement in principle to settle the action. The plaintiff, FlatWorld, then moved to vacate the claim construction...more

Business Litigation Report -- May 2014

In This Issue: - Main Article: ..Cloud Computing Is a Hot Topic… in Business and the Courtroom - Noted With Interest: ..Garlock: Lifting the Veil on Asbestos Trust Claims - Practice Area...more

Federal Circuit Review - Attorney's Fees, FRAND-encumbered Patents, and IPRs (May 2014)

Standard For Obtaining Attorney’s Fees Too High - In OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC., Appeal No. 12-1184, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the district...more

Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter #40

We are pleased to present the 40th edition of the Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter. This month, we discuss fee shifting provisions in corporate bylaws, the settlement of high stakes smartphone...more

Legal Alert: UPDATE: The Hare Loses Steam – Patent Litigation Reform Law Unlikely This Year

Efforts by the U.S. Senate to pass an alternative to the Innovation Act, which aims to reform abusive patent litigation, have stalled. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is leading the effort, has announced that his committee is tabling...more

Federal Circuit to Judge Posner: eBay Analysis Is a Must

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (in a case that attracted a dozen amici briefs) affirmed a district court ruling by Circuit Judge Posner (sitting by designation) that the holder of the FRAND-encumbered SEP...more

Federal Circuit Rules No Per Se Prohibition Against Injunctions For FRAND-Encumbered Standard Essential Patents

On April 25, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long-awaited decision in the appeal from Judge Posner’s ruling that denied both Motorola and Apple damages and injunctive relief in Apple Inc. v....more

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

64 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3