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
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain (S.D.N.Y.) recently transferred an action for patent infringement brought pro se by Rachel Ohana (“Ohana”) against Mars Petcare US, Inc. (“Mars Petcare”) to the United...more
On June 6, 2024, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision concluding claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,899,655 B1 (“the ’655 patent”) unpatentable. Yita LLC v. MacNeil IP LLC, IPR2023-00172, Paper 70 (PTAB Jun. 6, 2024)...more
Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Nos. 2022-1654, -1691 (Fed. Cir. (N.D. Cal.) Sept. 9., 2024). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Prost and Schall. Contour filed two suits against GoPro asserting infringement of two related...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s decision that the asserted claims were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, finding that the district court improperly characterized...more
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
On September 9, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) reversed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s decision finding asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §...more
The Western District of Texas granted a motion to stay a patent infringement lawsuit pending inter partes review not only because doing so would simplify the issues in the still-early litigation and reduce the burden on the...more
In Platinum Optics Tech. Inc. v. Viavi Sols. Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on the requirements for standing to appeal from an inter partes review (IPR) final...more
On July 30, 2024, United States Senators Christopher Coons (R-Delaware) and Thomas Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced the “Realizing Engineering, Science, and Technology Opportunities by Restoring Exclusive Patent Rights Act of...more
On June 28, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) requested the public’s views on the current state of the common law experimental use exception to patent infringement and whether legislative action...more
United States Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron (S.D.N.Y.) recently granted a motion by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Samsung”) to compel non-party Microchip Technology...more
On August 22, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment that (1) it has not infringed two asserted patents; and (2) the two patents are invalid for lack of written...more
In a recent decision, the PTAB determined that images of products offered for sale via online retailers, such as Amazon, did not alone qualify as printed publications—even if the images showed the product and the date it was...more
The world of intellectual property (IP) underwent some significant transformations this summer, with recent changes from the U.S. Federal Circuit and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) reshaping the landscape of...more
Fiskars Finland OY AB v. Woodland Tools, Inc., No. 22-cv-00540 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 26, 2024) - On August 26, 2024, the Western District of Wisconsin issued a decision adjudicating a number of motions in a case involving a...more
On August 30, 2024, Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Alexion Pharma International Operations Ltd. (collectively, “Alexion”) and Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. (“Samsung Bioepis”) settled their BPCIA dispute related to...more
Last week, in Osseo Imaging, LLC v. Planmeca USA Inc., No. 2023-1627 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 4, 2024), the Federal Circuit held that “[a]n expert need not have acquired the skill level prior to the time of the invention to be able...more
Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 2023-1107 (Fed. Cir. (W.D. Tex.) Sept. 3, 2024). Opinion by Reyna, joined by Dyk and Stark. Broadband iTV sued Amazon for infringement of five patents directed to...more
In a joint appeal of two adverse decisions from the District Court, the Federal Circuit on procedural grounds rejected an appeal from the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation ("WARF") in Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation...more
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - WISCONSIN ALUMNI RESEARCH FOUNDATION v. APPLE INC. [OPINION] (2022-1884, 8/28/2024) (Prost, Taranto, and Chen) - Prost, J. The Court affirmed two final judgments of the...more
Before Dyk, Reyna, and Stark. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: When assessing patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, combining two abstract ideas does not make...more
Specify the Steps of Information Manipulation or Lose under § 101 - In Mobile Acuity Ltd. v. Blippar Ltd. Appeal No. 22-2216, the Federal Circuit held that patent claims that merely recite result-orientated, functional...more
This chart summarizes the case name, presiding judge, drug, and patents-at-issue in all federal district court cases that are filed pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. It also includes the same information for proceedings...more
Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., Appeal Nos. 2022-1755, 2024-2221 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2024) In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit weighed in again on a 13-year-old patent dispute concerning Qualcomm’s...more
This chart tracks the date, drug, reference-listed company, applicant, and indications of publicly available drug launches resulting from Abbreviated New Drug Applications and 505(b)(2) Applications....more