Apple Patents

News & Analysis as of

Federal Circuit Clarity on Key IPR Issues May Be on the Way

We are entering an interesting phase in the development of inter partes review proceedings as more and more of the contours of these proceedings are being heard by the Federal Circuit. To date, the Federal Circuit has made...more

No Review of PTAB Determination to Not Institute an IPR, Again - Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Addressing a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) to not institute inter partes review IPR proceedings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded...more

Apple Secures Its Permanent Injunction - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Addressing the factors for granting injunctive relief in multifaceted, multifunction technology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s denial of Apple’s request for a...more

Pigs Fly, Hell Has Frozen Over, and the New York Times Supports Small Inventor and University Patenting

Admittedly, only on its Op-Ed page. But last Saturday Joe Nocera wrote a remarkably sane and reasoned column, entitled "The Patent Troll Smokescreen," pointing out that "big companies with large lobbying budgets" are using...more

WARF v. Apple: Motion to Exclude Live Witness Granted Where Apple Had Previously Sought to Rely Solely on Deposition Testimony

As the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") patent infringement case against Apple approached trial, Apple attempted to call a witness live that it had previously informed WARF's counsel would be called by...more

District Court Declines to Admit Denial of Petition for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") into Evidence before Jury

In a pending patent infringement action, Apple moved to preclude the plaintiff, Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundations ("WARF") from offering evidence or argument regarding the Patent Office's denial of an IPR that Apple...more

Federal Circuit Holds That It Lacks Jurisdiction To Review PTAB’s § 315 Time-Bar Determination

The Federal Circuit has again held that it lacks jurisdiction to review certain decisions of the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board in Inter Partes Reviews, continuing the Court’s apparent “hands off” approach to reviewing PTAB...more

Apple v. Samsung Part IV: The Injunction May Not Be Dead

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more

ITC Section 337 Update – October 2015

ITC Proposes Extensive Changes To Rules For Adjudicating Section 337 Investigations – On September 24, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing proposed changes to its...more

Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

Earlier this week, in the Achates Reference Publishing, Inc. v. Apple Inc. case, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the holding in In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC that it could not review any decision by the Patent Trial and...more

New Filings September 21-27, 2015

On September 22, 20150, Apple, Inc. filed IPR2015-01934 challenging claims 1-9 of United States Patent No. 8,316,177. On September 25, 2015, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd. filed IPR2015-01954 challenging claims...more

Federal Circuit revives injunctive relief against multi-feature products (Apple v. Samsung)

Today, a divided Federal Circuit panel issued a decision that vacates district court’s decision not to permanently enjoin Samsung from selling mobile devices having features found to infringe Apple’s patents. The majority...more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Third Anniversary Report

When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become...more

Apple Adds Force Touch to the iPhone: A Peek at Pop(ular) Patented Gestures

At the recent Apple iPhone unveiling event, we learned that you can Peek at it with a light press on your iPhone screen and Pop into it by pressing a little deeper. And just like that, Apple unleashed a new namespace of...more

Comparison of Design Patent and Trade Dress Protection in Light of the Federal Circuit’s Decision in Apple v. Samsung

In a decision authored by Chief Judge Sharon Prost, the Federal Circuit held that while design patents covering product configurations – that is, “a product feature or a combination or arrangement of features” – can protect...more

Cronos Technologies, LLC v. Expedia, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-1538 – LPS; C.A. No. 13-1541 – LPS; C.A. No. 13-1544 - LPS,...

Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al., C.A. Nos. 13-2058 – RGA; C.A. No. 13-2061-RGA; C.A. No. 13-2062-RGA; C.A. No. 13-2063-RGA; C.A. No. 13-2064-RGA; C.A. No. 13-2065-RGA; C.A. No. 13-2068-RGA; C.A. No....more

Apple Takes Us Back to PENCIL and PAPER

If you are a member of the Cult of Apple, like tech, or even just watch the news, you’re probably aware that yesterday was Apple’s big fall event where they announce new product launches and updates. The event showcased a...more

PTAB Petition Must Specifically Explain the Grounds for Invalidity - Apple Inc., v. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.

In a trio of orders addressing the extent of express explanation required in a petition for post-grant review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found each petition defective for lack of explanation regarding...more

Non-Apportioned Damages Awards Can Make Design Patents Highly Valuable

Companies should make design patents a key part of a company’s patent strategy due to the possibility for non-apportioned awards for design patent infringement. For companies manufacturing products in high volume, especially,...more

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Unpatentability Under Section 101 Denied Where Patents Were Not Directed to an...

Defendants Motorola Mobility, LLC,, Inc., Apple Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and...more

Smartflash v. Apple: District Court Stays Case Sua Sponte Based on Pending Covered Business Method ("CBM") Patent Review

The court had previously stayed a cased pending between Smartflash LLC and Amazon and simultaneously declined to stay an earlier-filed case between Smartflash LLC and Apple, Inc. because the stay request came after a jury...more

Keep the Petitions Concise - Apple, Inc. v. Contentguard Holdings, Inc.

Addressing the issues of voluminous petitions and obviousness, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied a request to institute an inter partes review (IPR), finding the...more

Covered Business Patents Jurisdiction Continues to Develop - Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC

In three parallel decisions, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) determined that patents directed to validating payment and then granting access to data were eligible for covered business method (CBM) review and...more

Two Prong Protection is the Best Approach for Product Configuration

It has long been possible to use both trade dress and design patent rights to protect three-dimensional designs that function as trademarks. One strategy has been to rely on design patent protection while a three-dimensional...more

The European Court of Justice on Enforcement of FRAND Patents: Huawei v. ZTE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its highly anticipated ruling in Huawei v. ZTE on the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) which are subject to a FRAND commitment. SEPs play a significant role in the...more

112 Results
View per page
Page: of 5

"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.
*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.