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"
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
Commentators have expressed concerns over the rising tide of complaints filed by non-practicing entities (NPEs) in the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) under Section 337 of the Tariff Act....more
We continue in our series of articles on patent opposition in New Zealand. In our previous article, NZ Patent Oppositions – Why do I need expert evidence?, we discussed the crucial role that evidence plays in patent...more
On February 14, 2013, in, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Reyna, Bryson, Wallach*) reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment following a bench trial that Watson did not infringe...more
That rarest of rara aves issued from the Supreme Court yesterday, an affirmance of a Federal Circuit opinion in Kappos v. Hyatt. Perhaps it is because, as in Stanford v. Roche one of the parties was the government (here,...more
There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding beyond those already presentin the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If new evidence is...more
Last week, the Supreme Court announced its much-anticipated and long-awaited decision in Bilski v. Kappos1, a case centered on the scope of patent-eligibility of process claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Not...more