En Banc Review

News & Analysis as of

Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of inequitable conduct in Apotex v. USB, a relatively rare occurrence in the years after the Federal Circuit's decision in Therasense v. Becton, Dickenson. In the Therasense...more

Amnesty International Continues to Push for En Banc Rehearing in Conflict Minerals Case

Amnesty International has filed a supplemental brief which continues to advocate for a rehearing en banc in the conflict minerals case. The argument is this: American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture...more

UPDATE: D.C. Circuit Clarifies Standard for Required Factual Disclosures

The D.C. Circuit issued its en banc opinion in American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The Court agreed with the panel's decision and specifically held that the test for assessing government mandates...more

July 2014: Bankruptcy and Restructuring Update

Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy—Uncertainties Remain Following the Eighth Circuit’s En Banc Decision in Interstate Bakeries. The bankruptcy of a party to an intellectual property license presents serious...more

HEAL Advisory: How Big Is Halbig? The Potential Effects of This Major Ruling Are Numerous and Significant

On July 22, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued conflicting opinions on a key aspect of the Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). The cases are Halbig v....more

$30, Four Opinions, and No Decision: The Province and Duty to Say What the Law Probably Is

Federal appellate courts ordinarily grant en banc hearings or rehearings only when “(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or (2) the proceeding involves a question...more

Supreme Court To Consider Cert. For FCC Regulation Speech On Public Broadcasting Stations

Federal law prohibits non-commercial broadcasters from airing paid advertisements (a) for for-profit entities, (b) issues of public importance or interest, and (c) political candidates. In Minority Television Project, Inc....more

Examining the Impact of the Supreme Court's Limelight v. Akamai Decision [Video]

Gaby L. Longsworth, Ph.D., director at the intellectual property law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox, discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. She...more

Gaming Legal News - June 2014 • Volume 7, Number 10

In This Issue: - INDIAN COUNTRY AWAITS 9TH CIRCUIT’S EN BANC REHEARING IN BIG LAGOON CASE: In January, a split 9th Circuit panel shocked Indian Country with its holding in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California that...more

Tackling Standard Of Review For Compelled Corporate Speech

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is hoping for another bite at the apple in the legal controversy surrounding its conflict minerals rule (“CM rule”). At the same time, an unrelated case raising nearly identical...more

Indian Country Awaits 9th Circuit’s En Banc Rehearing in Big Lagoon Case

In January, a split 9th Circuit panel shocked Indian Country with its holding in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California that the State’s failure to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact with the Big Lagoon...more

Corporate Communicator - Summer 2014

Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) added Section 13(p) to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), mandating that the SEC adopt regulations relating...more

Fourth Circuit Rules On Admissibility Standard In Trade Secrets Case

In a per curiam opinion that began and ended with the same expression of deep reluctance, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a key ruling by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia regarding the...more

In Limelight, Supreme Court Rejects Inducement Liability Without a Direct Infringer

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Limelight v. Akamai, recently reversed a Federal Circuit decision holding Limelight Networks liable for inducing patent infringement. The Supreme Court ruled that a party cannot be held liable for...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Two Significant Patent Rulings

Ruling unanimously twice in one day, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued two significant patent decisions that will significantly impact patent litigation in the future. ...more

Patent Law Alert: U.S. Supreme Court Raises the Bar for Patent Owners in Induced Infringement Claims

In a recent decision likely to significantly impact patent holders reliant on method-type claims, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that induced infringement...more

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Decisions in Two Important Patent Cases: What Do This Week’s Limelight and Nautilus Decisions...

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court delivered unanimous opinions in two separate cases addressing questions of patent law, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies (on induced infringement) and Nautilus v....more

Supreme Court Issues Significant Decisions in the Limelight Networks and Nautilus Cases Unanimously Overturning the Federal...

The Supreme Court recently issued two unanimous decisions concerning the standards governing claims for induced infringement and indefiniteness. A summary of the decisions follows. Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai...more

Divided Infringement Steps into the Limelight

Implications of Limelight v. Akamai - The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday that a defendant cannot be liable for inducing infringement unless the induced party directly infringed the patent. This means, under...more

Supreme Court: No Inducement Based on Divided (Direct) Infringement

On June 2, 2014, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. reversed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had...more

Supreme Court Curbs Inducement Doctrine in Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies

Summary - After much anticipation, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., making clear that a defendant may not be liable for inducing infringement of a method...more

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Two Key Patent Issues

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court decided two closely-watched patent cases, unanimously reversing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and making it easier to defend some claims of patent infringement....more

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Inducement of Infringement

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday limited the instances in which a party might be liable for inducing patent infringement. In a decision titled Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., the Court held that a party...more

U.S. Supreme Court Says Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement, But Leaves Direct Infringement Standard to Federal...

In a decision dated June 2, 2014, in the case Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (No. 12-786), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant is not liable for induced patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §...more

Post Limelight v. Akamai, Are Multi-actor Method Patent Claims D.O.A.?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Limelight v. Akamai yesterday requires a single actor, direct infringer to exist as a prerequisite to any finding of direct or indirect infringement. This decision, in view of the Federal...more

36 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2