Patent Infringement

News & Analysis as of

House Bill 194: Curbing Baseless Patent Infringement Claims

House Bill 194 was introduced on May 11, 2015, by primary sponsor Representative Kristina Roegner (R), Ohio House District 37. As introduced, the new bill will prohibit persons from engaging in the widespread sending of bad...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Kreative Power, LLC v. Monoprice, Inc.

Decision Date: March 3, 2015 - Court: Northern District of California - Patents: D653,215 - Holding: Defendant’s motion for summary judgment GRANTED - Opinion: On June 26, 2014, Kreative Power, LLC...more

Apple-Samsung Trade Dress Case Demonstrates Potential Value of Design Patents

A jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages after finding that smartphones sold by Samsung diluted Apple's trade dress and infringed Apple's design and utility patents. After a partial retrial limited to determining...more

Intellectual Property Alert: Apple v. Samsung: The Federal Circuit Clarifies Design Patent Principles Law

In a much anticipated opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple v. Samsung on May 18, the design patent law with respect to remedies and the infringement test remains robust. Notably, and...more

IP Dispute Resolution Review Newsletter, Spring 2015

In This Issue: - The New “Clear Error” Standard of Review in Patent Infringement Mediation - Trademark Trial Appeal Board Decisions Now Have Preclusive Effect - Engaging Panelists for Neutral Analysis Provides...more

Federal Circuit Finds No Direct Infringement of Akamai Patents

The Federal Circuit issued its remand decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., this time affirming the district court decision that Limelight was not liable for infringing Akamai’s patents because...more

The Importance of Contracts for Joint Infringement in Patent Cases

It has been about a year since the Supreme Court rendered its decision in Limelight v. Akamai regarding induced infringement for methods performed by two or more actors. “At that time, commentators predicted that attention...more

Federal Circuit Reaffirms Single Entity Rule for Divided Infringement under Section 271(a) in Akamai, Making Method Claims...

On May 13, 2015, the Federal Circuit issued the much-anticipated decision in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. following a remand from the Supreme Court. The Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that...more

BBQ Patent Must Face The Heat: Petition Is Not Barred When Filed Within 1 Year of the Filing of a Waiver of Service in the...

On October 13, 2014, The Brinkman Corporation filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent 8,381,712 directed to a barbecue grill that allows simultaneous gas grilling and charcoal-fueled grilling. ...more

Filing Waiver of Service Triggers One-Year IPR Bar Date - The Brinkmann Corporation v. A&J Manufacturing

Addressing the issue of standing to present a petition, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) granted institution of an inter partes review (IPR), finding that the petition filed within one year of filing waiver...more

Federal Circuit Finds No Direct Infringement Where Limelight's Customer—and Not Limelight—Performs Required Step of Method Claim

On May 13, 2015, a divided Federal Circuit held that Limelight did not infringe Akamai's asserted method claim because Limelight did not perform all steps of the asserted method claims, and because there was no foundation on...more

IP Newsflash - May 2015 #3

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Reverses Summary Judgment of Noninfringement Under § 271(e)(1) for Consideration of Certain Post-FDA-Submission Activities, But Expresses Skepticism About Infringement...more

Court Report - May 2015 #3

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Horizon Pharma, Inc. et al. v. Actavis Laboratories FL., Inc. et al. 3:15-cv-03322; filed May 13, 2015 in the District...more

Direct Infringement Has Its Turn in the Limelight

Akamai’s Return to the Federal Circuit - In the latest round of the long-running saga of Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., a Federal Circuit panel on Wednesday reiterated that there is no direct...more

Another One Bites the Dust: Action Dismissed for Lack of Standing Where Plaintiff Could Not Prove Ownership of the Patent-In-Suit

America's Collectibles Network ("ACN") filed a patent infringement action in which it claimed to own U.S. Patent No. 8,370,211 (the "211 Patent"). It brought this action against the Genuine Gemstone Company ("Genuine...more

April Court Decision Round-Up

Note: Beginning this month, IP Law Tracker will highlight significant intellectual property decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Michigan and...more

California Supreme Court Details Antitrust Analysis of "Reverse Payment" Patent Settlements

Last week, in In re Cipro Cases I & II, Case No. S198616, the Supreme Court of California adopted the United States Supreme Court's application of the Rule of Reason to the antitrust analysis of so-called "reverse payment"...more

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

The Hatch Waxman statute created a safe-harbor provision, found at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), that allows ANDA filers and others to practice patented inventions without fear of infringement liability, provided the acts are...more

Patent Case: Federal Circuit Provides Guidance On Direct Infringement (Akamai V. Limelight)

Today, a Federal Circuit panel, Judges Prost, Linn (author) and Moore (dissent), issued its long-awaited decision in the Akamia v. Limelight case following remand from the Supreme Court to consider the issue of multiple-actor...more

Court Report - May 2015 #2

About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases. Galderma Laboratories LP et al. v. Glenmark Generics Inc USA 3:15-cv-01416; filed May 6, 2015 in the Northern District...more

Federal Circuit Upholds Joint Infringement Defense in On-Going Akamai Litigation

In a 2-1 decision handed down May 13, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld what has become known as the “joint infringement defense,” under which a method claim is not infringed where the claimed steps...more

Federal Circuit Acknowledges § 284 Review Issue May Be Raised by Octane/Highmark Cases - Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a revised opinion in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. In the revised opinion the Court added a footnote discussing the implications of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence...more

Delaware Dismisses Caremark Claim Against DuPont

The Delaware Court of Chancery recently dismissed a derivative action in Ironworkers District Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity Retirement & Pension Plan v. Andreotti et al. One of the many claims alleged was a Caremark...more

The Fact That an Argument Is a Loser Is Not Enough to Make It Stand Out in a Crowd

Order Denying Defendant’s Motions for Sanctions and Attorney Fees, Kreative Power, LLC, v. Monoprice, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-02991-SI (Judge Susan Illston) - Little more than a year has passed since the Supreme Court...more

PUBLIC VERSION Of Judge Essex ITC Decision That Nokia Phones Infringe Interdigital’s 3GPP Patents (337-TA-613)

Following the prior notice of decision (see our Apr. 27, 2015 post), the Public Version is now available of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Essex’s Initial Determination On Remand that Nokia mobile phones infringe...more

1,266 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 51

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×