News & Analysis as of

Patentee Blindsided By Partially Uncorroborated Evidence

Evidence of what occurred over 15 years ago was ultimately accepted despite being only partially corroborated. As a result, many of the claims from Damorgold’s patent have been held invalid for lack of novelty based on that...more

Evidence in Support of Petition for Venue Transfer Must Be Sufficiently Specific - In re Apple Inc.; In re Barnes & Noble

In two decisions from identical panels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied mandamus petitions seeking to direct two district courts to vacate their denials of petitioners’ motions to transfer their...more

Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures: The Burden Of Proof Of Infringement In A Declaratory Judgment Action

On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC.1 The Court held that the burden of persuasion for proving patent infringement remains with the patentee in a...more

PersonalWeb v. Google: Duty to Preserve Emails Began When Patent Was Acquired

PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC ("PersonalWeb") filed a patent infringement action against Google for infringement of its "Truenames" patents. Google filed a motion for sanctions based on a contention that PersonalWeb...more

Board Explains Process for Correcting Exhibits to a Petition

In an Order for the Conduct of Proceedings in GSI Technology, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, [IPR2014-00202], Paper 8 (February 27, 2014), the Board explained the process for correcting an Exhibit under 37 C.F.R....more

Supreme Court’s Opinion Reiterates Principle that Patent Holders Bear Burden of Proof in Infringement Actions

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision issued on January 22, 2014, held that the burden of proof in patent infringement actions falls upon the patentee, regardless of whether the patentee is the moving party in the...more

District Court Refuses to Vacate Sanctions Ruling for Spoliation after Settlement

Digital-Vending Services International, LLC ("Digital-Vending") filed a patent infringement action against The University of Phoenix, Inc. and Apollo Group, Inc. ("Defendants"). During the course of the litigation, the...more

Playing Fast and Loose With Corroborating Evidence: Patent Advocacy Inequitable Conduct

Patent litigation often involves the assertion of prior art anticipation and obviousness defenses. U.S. patents are presumed valid, so a defendant seeking to overcome this presumption must persuade the fact-finder of a...more

Board Will Not Fill In Evidentiary Gaps in Inter Partes Review Petition

In a victory for Patent Owner, Zerto was unable to get any of 13 challenged claims of an EMC Israel Development Center patent into a trial for inter partes review, in Zerto, Inc. v. EMC Israel Development Center, Ltd.,...more

Supreme Court Rules That Patent Owner Always Bears the Burden of Proof on Patent Infringement

In a nine to zero decision authored by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit and held that when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment against a patentee that the...more

“Inherency Requires More Than Probabilities” - Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n

Addressing whether an essential claim limitation is inherently present in a prior art reference for purposes of an anticipation analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling out of the U.S....more

Unanimous Supreme Court to Federal Circuit: Burden of Proof on Infringement on Patentee, Even in Declaratory Judgment - Medtronic,...

A unanimous Supreme Court of the United States, in a decision authored by Justice Breyer, reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the patentee bears the burden of persuasion on the issue of...more

Supreme Court Rules Patentee Always Bears Burden of Proving Infringement

In its first intellectual property ruling of the current term, the Supreme Court unanimously held on January 22, 2014 in Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC that a patentee always bears the burden of proving...more

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Patentees Bear the Burden of Proof of Infringement in DJ Actions Brought by Licensee

A patentee bears the burden of proving infringement when a licensee seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Supreme Court has held. The ruling reversed the Federal Circuit and clarified declaratory...more

Supreme Court Unanimously Holds Burden of Proving Infringement Does Not Shift to Licensees in Declaratory Judgment Actions

The Supreme Court's decision last week in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC clarifies once again that patent holders bear the burden of proving patent infringement—even in declaratory judgment actions brought by...more

Courts Remain Divided Over Pleading Requirements for Inducement

Recent cases have revealed a division of opinion over whether a patentee is required to plead that an accused indirect infringer had knowledge of the patent before being sued, or whether the filing of a patent infringement...more

Attorney Argument in Preliminary Response Continues to be Trumped by Expert Evidence from Petition

Challenging two patents with a common parent application, Butamax Advanced Biofuels was able to get 28 challenged claims of one Gevo patent and 18 challenged claims of a second into separate trials for inter partes review, in...more

November 2013: Patent Litigation Update

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems (expanding evidence that may be used to negate an intent to induce infringement of a patent). The Federal Circuit recently expanded the scope of evidence that a defendant may introduce to...more

PTAB Clarifies Procedure for Filing Supplemental Evidence in Response to Objections

As a follow up to our post regarding issues that have arisen to date regarding supplemental evidence, it is worth noting two recent PTAB decisions in which the proper procedure for introducing supplemental evidence in...more

Entry of Supplemental Evidence a Tough Hurdle to Navigate in IPR Proceedings

Early expectations of inter partes review proceedings were that the PTAB would be reticent to allow supplemental evidence to be entered by either party – there would be no second bites at the apple for participants in IPR...more

Federal Circuit Finds Flexibility in Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Infringement

In MeadWestVaco Corp. v. Rexam Beauty and Closures, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the admissibility of expert testimony that was not fully aligned with the district court’s claim construction. In so doing, the court...more

Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB Decision Invalidating Rambus Patent

In Rambus, Inc. v. Rea, the Federal Circuit found several legal and procedural errors in the decision of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated certain claims of the Rambus patent as obvious. While...more

Rambus Inc. v. Rea (Fed. Cir. 2013) - A Little Reminder to the PTO about Due Process and the Importance of Objective Evidence of...

In its decision on September 24th, the Federal Circuit reminded the Patent Office that the principles of due process are still alive and kicking and cannot be ignored by the Patent Office's judiciary. The case came to...more

Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR Discovery and Evidentiary PTAB Decisions [Video]

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has published six representative decisions and orders that deal with discovery and evidentiary issues in inter partes review proceedings. In this video, Jon E. Wright, director at the...more

Opposition Proceedings – Procedural Changes

Significant changes to Australian patent opposition proceedings arise under the new Regulations to the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 that came into force on April 15, 2013....more

33 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2