News & Analysis as of

Apple Motion to Stay Litigation Pending an IPR Is Denied by the District Court for the Northern District of California

In the matter pending in the Northern District of California, Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Apple moved to stay the litigation pending inter partes review of the patent-in-suit. On October 9, 2013, plaintiff Aylus...more

Federal Circuit Grants Writ of Mandamus Ordering Transfer of Case

In re Apple - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus and ordered the case transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S....more

Interval Licensing: Determining Indefiniteness Post-Nautilus

The Supreme Court’s decision in Nautilus1 is considered by many as a significant development for accused infringers asserting indefiniteness. The decision is viewed as relaxing the standard thereby making it easier for...more

Terms of Degree Must Provide Objective Boundaries

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. - Providing further elaboration on the “reasonable certainty” standard in an indefiniteness analysis involving a term of degree, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more

PTAB Addresses Issue of Whether IPR Prior Art is Enabling

A “Hail Mary” of sorts, for Patent Owners, in their fight to defend the patentability of a challenged patent, can be an argument that a particular prior art reference is not relevant to the patentability analysis because it...more

Prevailing Party Awarded Taxable Costs from Production to Opposing Party (California)

Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014). In this intellectual property case, the plaintiff sought to recover around $1.5 million in costs for producing documents to an online hosted...more

Patent Law Developments: Indefiniteness and Damages

Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)- The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s opinion in Interval Licensing v. AOL, Inc. is the first case interpreting the general (and highly criticized) standard...more

PTAB to Apple: No Third or Fourth Bite at the Apple

In inter partes proceeding Apple Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute et al., IPR2014-00320, Petitioner Apple sought a second request for rehearing, before an expanded panel of the PTAB, on the Board's decision not to...more

Motion for Summary Judgment Based on Apple License as Defense Denied Where Apple Products Were Not Used to Satisfy Any Claim...

In this patent infringement action between Personal Audio ("Personal Audio") and Togi Entertainment, Inc. ("Togi"), the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment based on a license defense. They requested summary...more

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

73 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3