Apple Patents

News & Analysis as of

IP Cases to Watch in 2017

The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best. Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least...more

ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A Reminder Of Obviousness Analysis Under KSR

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. the Federal Circuit upheld a decision from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”), which invalidated several claims of ClassCo’s US Patent No. 6,970,695 (“the ’695 patent”) that...more

Design Patents – The Forgotten Protection

The use of design patents to protect a new product is frequently overlooked. The public only becomes aware of design patents whenever the rare blockbuster jury verdict arises such as Apple’s verdict over Samsung over iPhone...more

Intellectual Property Law - December 2016

Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more

Supreme Court Signals Shift in Approach to Damages in Design Patent Infringement Cases

In its first design patent case in over a century, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, December 6, 2016, reversed a damages award Apple Inc. (“Apple”) had won over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) in their protracted...more

For Design Patent Damages 'Article of Manufacture’ Not Necessarily Entire End Product

A unanimous US Supreme Court held that for purposes of determining damages for design patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §289, the relevant “article of manufacture” may include either the end product sold to the consumer or...more

Supreme Court Rules Against Apple in Design Patent Case with Samsung, Remands to Federal Circuit to Formulate Test for Identifying...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the relevant “article of manufacture” for arriving at a damages award for design patent infringement need not be the end product sold to the consumer, but may be only a component of that...more

Samsung Versus Apple in the Design Patent Wars: The Supreme Court Strikes Back – And Punts

In a December 6, 2016 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered the latest decision in the long-running war over smartphones between industry and cultural titans, Apple and Samsung. While many might have hoped for a clarifying...more

Supreme Court Reverses Apple’s $400 Million Damage Award Against Samsung

On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, that an award of total profits for infringing a design patent need not be calculated based only on the end product sold to an...more

Supreme Court Decision Regarding Damages for Design Patent Infringement

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday overturned a $400 million jury award to Apple for Samsung's infringement of certain Apple design patents relating to smartphones (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al....more

The Sum of the Parts ? the Whole? SCOTUS on Samsung v Apple

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned a $400 million damages award against Samsung for infringing Apple's smartphone design patents. In a decision that upsets a long-standing rule for calculating damages for design...more

Supreme Court Changes Standard for Determining Damages for Design Patent Infringement

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (No. 15-777) - In the closely-watched Samsung v. Apple case, the Supreme Court today issued a landmark ruling that changed the long-standing rule for calculating damages for...more

Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)

Computerized Restaurant Ordering Menu Patents Found to Be Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in three...more

The Difficulty in Implementing an Idea Does Not Mean the Idea is Not Abstract

In Apple, Inc., v. Ameranth, Inc., [2015-1703, 2015-1704] (November 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the PTAB’s subject matter eligibility determination of claims of U.S. Patent Nos....more

The Decision To Grant Rehearing En Banc In Apple v. Samsung

On October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit issued another decision in the ongoing patent litigations between Apple and Samsung that began in the Northern District of California. The district court had found at summary judgment...more

Obviousness Inquiry Allows Flexibility in Considering Teachings of Prior Art

Addressing issues of obviousness, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of obviousness based on a flexible approach and further clarified the appropriate evaluation of secondary considerations...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies Nexus Requirement of Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness

In ClassCo, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 15-1853 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2016), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that certain claims of ClassCo’s patent directed to improvements on “Caller ID” services were...more

Practical Implications from the Federal Circuit’s Rare en Banc Reversal in Apple v. Samsung

In a precedential opinion issued en banc on Friday, October 7, 2016, the Federal Circuit overturned a panel decision, affirming and reinstating the district court’s judgment and the jury’s verdict. The majority opinion...more

Smartphone Patent War: En Banc Federal Circuit Rebukes Earlier Panel Decision and Reinstates Jury Verdicts for Apple against...

In its October 7 en banc decision in Apple v. Samsung, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, without benefit of en banc briefing, issued an unusual opinion overturning a panel decision for the purpose of...more

Claim Differentiation Doctrine Does Not Overcome Construction Dictated by Written Description or Prosecution History **WEB ONLY**

Addressing the application of the claim differentiation doctrine in claim construction, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s construction, finding that the doctrine of claim...more

Federal Circuit Clarifies That It Still Lacks Jurisdiction To Review Whether Petition Was Time-Barred

A “determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). A series of decisions from the Federal Circuit have clarified to what...more

Indirect Infringement Not Overcome by Objective Strength of Non-Infringement Case

Addressing indirect infringement and claim construction issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on three of the four patents at issue, finding that it applied the wrong standard for...more

Federal Circuit Emphasizes that an Obviousness Analysis Based on Common Sense Must be Supported by Substantial Evidence and...

A recent decision by the Federal Circuit suggests that relying on “common sense” in analyzing whether a patent is obvious in view of prior art cannot always be based on common sense alone. In a decision providing...more

When Can Common Sense be Relied Upon to Find an Invention Obvious?

All patent practitioners recognize that a single prior art reference can be used to reject claims in an obviousness rejection. However, the issue is whether the Patent Office must provide additional evidence, above and beyond...more

The Smart Phone Patent Saga Continues - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.

In a case involving suits, countersuits and multiple appeals by the two giants of the mobile phone space, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury’s finding of infringement, voiding the accompanying...more

141 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 6
Popular Topics

"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*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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.
×