The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 20 - Pitfalls and Perils: Employee Retention Credit Enforcement Trends
Breaking Down Bad Faith: Insurers’ Good Faith Duties and Defending Bad Faith Claims
Podcast: No Surprises Act: New Rules and Guidance for Stakeholders (Part 2) - Diagnosing Health Care
Advancing Agriculture: Security Interests and Article 9 Challenges (Part 2)
New Developments in the World of Section 230
On-Demand Webinar | Employment Issues With a COVID-19 Vaccine
Is the Aseracare precedent in jeopardy? Courts Questioning Clinical Judgment Standards
Is the Aseracare Precedent in Jeopardy? Courts Questioning Clinical Judgment Standards
Relaxed HIPAA Restrictions For Providers Using Telehealth
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 70: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Criminal Law and Procedure
IAPP Global Privacy Summit Recap, Big Questions, and Indiana Jones Analogies
I-21 – Sexual Harassment (Still), Political Tweeting, and Intersectional Discrimination
On April 17, 2024, a second Texas jury assessed damages of $142 million against Samsung, more than doubling a previous jury award of $67.5 in a protracted standard essential patent (SEP) litigation brought by G+...more
It’s never a bad time for companies holding U.S. patents to assess their patent marking strategy and compliance. Patent marking is often neglected or relegated to the marketing team, but it shouldn’t be. Whether what and how...more
According to Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, obligations to negotiate under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms apply not only to standard essential patent (SEP) holders but to implementers...more
The availability of post-grant proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has changed the face of patent litigation. This periodic digest is designed to keep you up-to-date by highlighting interesting PTAB,...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision regarding experimental use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the application of enhanced damages based on an allegedly flawed...more
For more than a decade, public policymakers, competition agencies, courts, and government authorities around the world have been developing an increasingly detailed set of rules governing and defining fair, reasonable, and...more
The Court of Appeal of The Hague has again given guidance on the interpretation of the CJEU decision in Huawei v ZTE and the standards for assessing FRAND defences under Dutch law. In its decision of 2 July 2019, less than...more
A recent decision in the Eastern District of Texas should provide standard-essential patent (“SEP”) owners with more clarity and optimism when negotiating SEP licenses. Coming on the heels of Judge Koh’s decision in the FTC’s...more
In a case of twisting facts, a trial judge has denied a plaintiff’s motion to correct inventorship to add an inventor to a patent because that plaintiff previously asked the PTO to remove that same inventor from the patent...more
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
Although motions to strike are generally difficult to win, when successful they can significantly dim the opposing party’s prospects for victory on particular claims or defenses. In one recent patent infringement action out...more
Janssen Biotech Inc. and Celltrion Healthcare have taken the next step over Janssen’s blockbuster arthritis biologic medicine Remicade (infliximab) and Celltrion’s biosimilar, as required by the Biologics Price Competition...more
On March 2, 2017, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an order in Janssen v. Celltrion explaining that an accused patent infringer’s failure to fully engage in the Biologics Price...more
New rules for patent cases in the Northern District of California will significantly affect litigation and settlement of cases in Silicon Valley’s backyard. Lawyers litigating cases in the district after the January 17, 2017...more
In an order perhaps indicating that the tide is turning for patent owners seeking to amend claims in inter partes review (IPR), an expanded panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided clarification as...more
July has just ended, and SEP and FRAND issues are in the air. On July 8, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) sought public comments on its proposed amendments to its Guidelines for the Use of Intellectual Property under...more
The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Commil v. Cisco held that a good-faith belief of a patent’s invalidity, standing alone, is insufficient to provide a defense to a claim of inducing another’s infringement...more
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its highly anticipated ruling in Huawei v. ZTE on the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) which are subject to a FRAND commitment. SEPs play a significant role in the...more
In a sharply divided opinion, the Supreme Court has determined that a party may be liable for inducing the infringement of a patent even if it has a good faith belief that the patent is invalid. The decision, Commil USA, LLC...more
Six justices of the Supreme Court agree that an accused indirect infringer’s good faith belief in invalidity of a patent “will not negate the scienter required under §271(b).” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 13-896,...more
A U.S. patent is “presumed” valid. That means a patent owner does not need to prove the patent is valid in a suit for infringement. And, as the U.S. Supreme Court just explained in Commil United States, LLC v. Cisco Systems,...more
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court provided much needed guidance regarding the availability of certain defenses to claims of induced infringement. Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-896, May...more
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys, Inc. that a defendant’s good-faith belief in the invalidity of the patent-in-suit is not a defense to induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b)....more
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc. that an alleged infringer's belief regarding patent validity cannot be used as evidence in a defense to an induced infringement claim. In so...more
In a 6-2 decision this week, the United States Supreme Court in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 575 U.S. ____ (2015) held that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim...more