What is at will employment law?
Patent Office Litigation Update: IPR Discovery and Evidentiary PTAB Decisions
[Legal Perspective] When Is It NOT Okay to Delete Your Social Media Account?
N.Y. Anti-Terror Law Diminishes Pursuit of Terrorism: Lawyer
Federal Criminal Defense Attorney - Overturning A Guilty Verdict in a Federal Criminal Appeal
What issues do people raise in a federal criminal appeal?
How Does Cooperating In A Federal Criminal Case Work?
How do federal conspiracy charges work?
Newtown Shootings Could Give Rise to More Litigation, Says Pinsky
Rajaratnam Judge: Wiretaps in Insider Trading Cases are "Radical"
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Parties in patent infringement lawsuits frequently must choose a witness to explain complex or scientific technology behind an invention or an accused product that sits at the heart of a claim or a defense. Often, the parties...more
In Frolow v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., the Federal Circuit refused to adopt the doctrine of marking estoppel, but held that evidence that Wilson had marked some accused tennis racket models constituted evidence of...more
Back to Top