Apple Patents

News & Analysis as of

Apple-Samsung Trade Dress Case Demonstrates Potential Value of Design Patents

A jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages after finding that smartphones sold by Samsung diluted Apple's trade dress and infringed Apple's design and utility patents. After a partial retrial limited to determining...more

Nearly Expired Is Not the Same as Expired: The Board Clarifies Claim Construction Standards for Inter Partes Review - Apple, Inc....

Addressing the standard to be applied for claim construction during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) declined to create an...more

A Combination Is Not Obvious If It Is Beyond the Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Other Lessons - MobileMedia Ideas LLC v....

Addressing issues of obviousness and claim construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit provided several important lessons in significantly modifying the district court judgment. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v....more

Tracking #AliceStorm: The Dead Keep Piling Up

For the first week of April, AliceStorm continues unabated, and though the indices are down, the damage spreads. Not surprisingly, the Eastern District of Texas appears to have become the eye of the storm--that place of calm...more

Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter #49

We are pleased to present the 49th edition of the Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter. This month, we highlight recent cases that address patent infringement claims, erroneous termination of security...more

Is the Patent Litigation Boom Coming to an End?  [Video]

Feb. 3, 2015 (Mimesis Law) -- David Marcus, reporter for The Deal, talks with Lee Pacchia about how a recent sale of a patent portfolio could signal a slowdown in patent litigation work. Lee wonders if this spells a problem...more

IP Newsflash - January 2015 #3

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Akin Gump Wins Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement - Akin Gump obtained a significant victory on summary judgment for HTC and AT&T in a patent infringement case against Adaptix, Inc., an...more

Smartflash v. Apple: District Court Excludes Damage Theory Based on Survey Responses That Were Insufficient to Show That the...

Plaintiffs Smartflash LLC and Smartflash Technologies Limited (collectively "Smartflash") filed patent infringement actions against Apple, Inc. ("Apple"), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,...more

Daubert Challenge to Damage Expert Denied Where Contested Matters Were for Cross-Examination and Not Proper for Exclusion

In this patent infringement action, Apple challenged the opinions of the plaintiff's damage expert on several bases, including the determination of a royalty rate based on the price of third-party applications....more

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

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

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

79 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 4

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* 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.
×