Apple Patents

News & Analysis as of

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

Supreme Court Decides to Hear Samsung v. Apple, Appears Ready to Weigh-In on Patent Damage Calculations

This week, in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, the Supreme Court granted Samsung’s petition for certiorari and agreed to hear the case about Apple’s smartphone design patents in its upcoming term. This will...more

Now It’s Apple and Samsung: Patents, Rulings and Appeals

In a Federal Circuit decision handed down recently, the appeals court overturned a $120 million jury verdict awarded to Apple. Samsung prevailed in this, the third appeal in this litigation. Two of Apple’s patents were found...more

Design Patents – Unlocking the Value of The User Experience

The oft-overlooked design patent has seen somewhat of a revival recently (at least in the media) ever since a jury in California awarded Apple $399 million in damages — i.e., all Samsung profits from the sale of several of...more

Multiplying Claim Requirements After Trial Makes Things Impermissibly Complex (Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.)

After a jury found non-infringement and invalidity of two asserted patent claims, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of the patent owner’s judgment as a matter of law (JMOL)...more

Apple (Finally) Enjoins the Sale of (Obsolete) Samsung Phones

In the latest development in the patent skirmishes between Apple and Samsung, on Monday, January 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California entered a permanent injunction barring...more

Federal Circuit Revised Injunction Decision To Emphasize Patented Feature Being One Of Several That Drive Purchasing Decision...

Last week, the Federal Circuit denied en banc review by the entire court of the three-judge panel decision in the Apple v. Samsung case that had revived the ability to obtain injunctive relief against multiple component...more

Ericsson And Apple Settle Patent Disputes

Ericsson and Apple reportedly have settled the patent disputes between them, including those involving standard essential patents that were pending in district courts in California and Texas as well as in the U.S....more

Fed. Circuit Affirms PTAB’S CBM Decision Based on a Ground Not Raised By Petitioner

In SightSound Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. (CBM2013-00020), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the patent appellate court) recently affirmed the decision of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate...more

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

120 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 5
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"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.
×