Connecticut Collections: How to get paid if you are owed money? Part 2: Prejudgment Remedy ("PJR")
This case addresses the application of issue preclusion in scenarios where two closely related cases allege patent infringement against different versions of the same technology. Specifically, this case discusses whether a...more
Koss filed a patent infringement suit against Bose asserting the ’155, ’934, and ’025 patents, after which Bose petitioned for inter partes review of all three patents before the PTAB. The district court case was stayed...more
Copan Italia SPA v. Puritan Med. Prods. Co. LLC, Appeal No. 2022-1943 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2024) The Federal Circuit’s only precedential opinion concerning a patent case this week had nothing to do with patent law....more
On June 2, 2023,the PTAB held the standard enunciated in Astoria Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991) applies to claim preclusion determinations. This was yet another decision in the ongoing battle...more
Last week, in Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. Apple, Inc., the Federal Circuit left intact Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s ruling of unenforceability based on prosecution laches and deprived Personalized Media...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed a patent holder’s interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Modern Font Applications LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., Case No....more
Addressing a multitude of issues, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling dismissing infringement of one patent and finding a trade dress invalid but reversed the invalidation of...more
In a recent opinion, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey considered whether to grant a joint request by settling parties to vacate the Court’s Judgment stemming from a jury trial and verdict in...more
In a prior alert, we discussed Senior U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler’s decision to deny defendant LG Electronics’s (“LG”) motion to stay a retrial on damages in a patent infringement case involving plug-and-play...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a counterclaim plaintiff was estopped from relitigating antitrust claims in a separate action where the prior judgment allegedly involved separate and alternative...more
In the latest round of the Apple/VirnetX saga, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held to its precedents in determining when 35 USC § 317(b) estoppel is triggered against inter partes re-examinations. VirnetX...more
The Berkheimer effect is real and may be a lifeline for a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss or summary judgment. But at some point, those genuine disputes of material fact will be put to a jury....more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Board of Regents of the University of Texas Sys. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Appeal No. 2018-1700 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 5, 2019) - This week’s case of the week involves issues relating to venue...more
BOARD OF REGENTS v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP. Before Prost, Reyna, and Stoll. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: The patent venue statute governs actions filed by a...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Mark A. Barry v. Medtronic, Inc., Appeal No. 2017-2463 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) - On Thursday, the Federal Circuit issued a significant decision affirming the district court’s rulings related...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
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., Appeal Nos. 2013-1527, 2014-1121, -1526, -1528 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 11, 2019) - In the continuing saga between WesternGeco and ION Geophysical, a Federal...more
PATENT CASE OF THE WEEK - Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, Appeal No. 2016-2700 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) On Friday, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s dismissal of a...more
Judge Sue L. Robinson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware recently identified a logical fallacy in the “statutory estoppel” jurisprudence with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). According to the...more
In a decision that could significantly extend the estoppel effects of 35 USC § 315(e), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) found that estoppel applies to all real parties in interest of an inter partes review...more
In a case that appears to be a case of first impression, the PTAB found in its decision denying institution in IPR2016-00781 that a final written decision in an earlier IPR created estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1),...more
In Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that clear error review applies to factual determinations underlying district court claim constructions. There has been much discussion about the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 20, 2016 in Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee that: (1) the statutory authority of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in instituting an inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding is...more
On June 20th, in Cuozzo v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit holding that claims should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in inter partes review proceedings....more
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, which unanimously upheld the “broadest reasonable construction” claim construction standard (BRI) used by the Patent Trial and...more