3 Key Takeaways | What Corporate Counsel Need to Know About Patent Damages
Patent Litigation: How Low Can You Go?
(Podcast) The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Briefing: Netflix to Pay $2.5M to GoTV for Patent Infringement
The Art of Teaching Complex Technology in Patent Litigation - IMS Insights Podcast Episode 67
The Briefing: Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
Podcast: The Briefing - Failure to Disclose Relationship with Real Party in Interest Results in Serious Sanctions
5 Key Takeaways | How to Effectively Leverage the Chinese Patent System
Estoppel Doctrine in China's Patent System
Donation (Disclosure-Dedication) Doctrine in China’s Patent Litigation
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Patent Right Evaluation Report in China’s Patent System
Kidon IP War Stories: David Cohen & Daryl Lim
Protecting the PB&J – Preserving IP Rights from Concept to Market
Patent Marking in China
Webinar: Orange Book listing sheets under the microscope
Kidon IP War Stories – David Cohen & Dragos Vilau
Stages of Patent Invalidation Proceedings
What's New on China's Punitive Damages in IP Litigation?
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
After a couple of weeks with lots of precedential decisions, the Federal Circuit caught its breath last week and issued only non-precedential ones (with the possible exception of a sealed opinion that may or may not be...more
Although infrequently awarded, district courts are empowered to issue sanctions for behavior at the PTAB that they deem “exceptional” under Octane Fitness. In Game and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wargaming Group Limited,...more
On April 25, 2019, in Int’l Designs Corp., LLC, et. al. v. Hair Art Int’l, Inc., Judge George H. Wu in the Central District of California denied Hair Art’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Judge Wu concluded...more
Among the more interesting EDTX/NDTX opinions last month was a decision by Magistrate Judge Payne regarding §285 attorneys’ fees. As a reminder, 35 U.S.C. §285 provides that, in an action for patent infringement, “[a] court...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before PROST, Wallach, and Taranto. Appeal from the Southern District of Indiana. Summary: In determining whether a party’s actions were “exceptional” under Octane Fitness, the District...more
District Court Abused Discretion in Ignoring Federal Circuit Mandate to Reconsider Attorneys’ Fees Under Octane Fitness - In Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1882, the Federal Circuit held that a district...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision for proper application of the exceptional case standard set forth in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness (IP Update, Vol. 18,...more
This was a busy week for precedential cases at the Circuit. In AIA v. Avid, the Circuit rules that there is no right to a jury trial as to requests for attorney fees under § 285. In Romag v. Fossil, a majority rules that the...more
In Shipping and Transit, LLC v. Hall Enterprises, Inc., a district court recently held that a patent infringement case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and the defendant was entitled to recover attorney fees and costs...more
Kilpatrick Townsend’s Clay Holloway, a partner in the firm’s Atlanta office, recently participated in a webinar as part of a panel to discuss the issue of attorney fees three years after the U.S. Supreme Court decision in...more
While the Supreme Court’s decisions in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. significantly relaxed the standard for awarding attorney fees under 35...more
A flurry of activity from various courts this past week on “exceptional cases” under Section 285 of the Patent Act provided notable guidance for practitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on the motivation...more
In SCA v. First Quality Baby Products, the Supreme Court holds that laches should not be available as a defense in patent cases, refusing to concur with the Circuit’s en banc holding that the Patent Act’s 6-year limitation on...more
On February 10, 2017, an Illinois federal judge determined that R-Boc Representatives violated an injunction issued following a jury trial on their alleged patent infringement. In a unique opinion replete with quotations...more
Design Patents—Supreme Court Decides Samsung v. Apple - Why it matters: On December 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Samsung v. Apple, holding that, for purposes of a "total profits" damages award for infringement of a...more
In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more
Patent opinions are no longer necessary to avoid an inference at trial that the opinion would have been unfavorable, but, in view of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Halo and Octane Fitness they may be advisable upon...more
In Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness (2014), the Supreme Court changed the standard for recovering attorneys’ fees in patent litigation. Rejecting a “rigid and mechanical formulation,” the Court adopted a looser...more
On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court again reversed a decision of the Federal Circuit—the Circuit specially designated to hear all patent appeals—this time, in articulating the test for determining whether to award...more
The Supreme Court of the United States traced two centuries of analysis related to enhanced damages in patent cases to conclude that the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s two-part test, announced nearly a decade...more
On June 13, 2016 Chief Justice Roberts delivered a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Halo v. Pulse on the question of when enhanced damages can be awarded for patent infringement. This decision reversed...more
Section 284 of the Patent Act provides that, in the event of damages for patent infringement, “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In 2007, the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate...more
In a relatively rare “pro-patent” decision, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week unanimously overruled the Federal Circuit’s so-called Seagate standard for finding willful patent infringement and awarding enhanced...more
On Monday, in a significant victory for patent owners, the U.S. Supreme Court swept away the Federal Circuit’s “inelastic” framework for assessing enhanced patent damages and found that 35 U.S.C. § 284 means what it says:...more
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the Federal Circuit’s strict tests concerning monetary relief in patent cases in favor of more fluid standards that commit discretion to the district courts. In...more