False Claims Act Insights - Assessing the Fallout from a Thermonuclear FCA Verdict
3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years (Podcast)
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years
Supreme Court to Settle Circuit Split Regarding RICO Damages Arising From Personal Injuries — RICO Report Podcast
RICO Damages — RICO Report Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: How Far Back Can You Go: Supreme Court to Decide Circuit Split on Recovery of Copyright Damages
The Briefing; How Far Back Can You Go: Supreme Court to Decide Circuit Split on Recovery of Copyright Damages
SDNY Chooses “Time Approach” to Calculating Lease Termination Damages Collectible Against a Bankrupt Estate
Using Expert Witnesses in FCRA Cases - FCRA Focus
#WorkforceWednesday: How to Pursue Damages in Trade Secrets Litigation - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
How Do You Measure The Economic Value of Ecosystems?
Podcast: Discussing Florida Tort Reform with William Large and Tiffany Roddenberry
6 Key Takeaways | Presenting Damages in International Arbitration
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 167: Listen and Learn -- Direct and Derivative Actions (Corporations)
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 306: Listen and Learn -- Intentional Torts: Defamation
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Spain
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP Litigation Trends: Are Large IP Litigation Damages Awards Here to Stay? – Part 2
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - IP Litigation Trends: Are Large IP Litigation Damages Awards Here to Stay? – Part 1
JONES DAY TALKS®: Private Antitrust Litigation in Europe: The Big Picture
This post summarizes two recent Eastern District of Texas opinions regarding the award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Traxcell Technologies, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al, 2-17-cv-00718 (EDTX Mar. 29, 2022) (Roy S....more
On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the...more
SRI INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. Before LOURIE, O’MALLEY, and STOLL. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: Applying the proper test for willful...more
Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2020-1646, -1656 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 2, 2021) - Our Case of the Week focuses on the issue of indefiniteness, and particularly, terms that are construed as...more
In Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia directed Cisco Systems to pay $1.9 billion after the company lost a patent suit brought by Centripetal...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the US Court of Federal Claims attorneys’ fees award for patent infringement by the United States solely based on its actions during litigation. Hitkansut LLC,...more
Chief Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas held that the litigation conduct of defendants Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”), in a patent infringement action,...more
Enhanced Damages Under the Patent Act - The Patent Act provides that once infringement has been established, a district court may “increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” 35 U.S.C. § 284. The...more
ELBIT SYSTEMS LAND AND C4I LTD. v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC - Before Taranto, Mayer, and Chen. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: Neither 28 U.S.C. § 1295 nor 28...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC, Appeal No. 2018-1910 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2019) - In this appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a denial of attorneys’ fees under 35 USC § 285 and cautioned future litigants to “tread carefully” in criticizing district courts. Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Taranto, and Stoll. Appeal from U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Summary: The Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court judgment...more
On May 24, 2018, Apple was awarded a verdict of $533 million for Samsung’s infringement of three Apple design patents. While unsuccessful ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) were filed against two of those three design patents,...more
This post is our latest review of noteworthy case developments in the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas for the month of April 2018. Two subjects stand out this month from the Eastern District: (1) testimony of damages...more
Patent Judgments & Awards - On February 8, 2018, Judge Andrew Guilford of the District Court for Central District of California increased a jury award against Custom Blinds and Components Inc. (“CBC”) for patent...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more
Patent Judgments & Awards - On July 19, 2017, a federal court in Michigan awarded Stryker Sales Corporation (“Stryker”) a total of more than $254,000,000 in its patent infringement suit against Zimmer Inc. and Zimmer...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more
Patent opinions are no longer necessary to avoid an inference at trial that the opinion would have been unfavorable, but, in view of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Halo and Octane Fitness they may be advisable upon...more
Under O2 Micro, a District Court Must Provide a Claim Construction if the Parties Dispute the Meaning of a Claim Term - In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1237, the Federal...more
Earlier today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two related cases: Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. (Supreme Court docket number 14-1513) and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. (Supreme Court docket...more