Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 343: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Redefining Personal Jurisdiction: SCOTUS rules on the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 19]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 2: The Ford Cases [More With McGlinchey Ep. 8]
Personal Jurisdiction: Not what you learned in law school [More with McGlinchey Ep. 4]
Precedential and Key Federal Circuit Opinions - 1. IOENGINE, LLC V. VIDAL (21-1227 Lourie, Chen, Stoll) - Chen, J. The Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial and...more
SnapRays v. Lighting Defense Group, Appeal No. 2023-1184 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2024) Our Case of the Week deals with an issue the Court has not addressed recently: the question of declaratory judgment jurisdiction....more
Referencing the use of antecedents from a “wherein” clause, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s claim construction and vacated its summary judgment ruling of indefiniteness that relied...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected a bright-line rule that patent infringement notice letters and related communications can never form the basis for specific personal jurisdiction. Apple Inc. v. Zipit...more
Last week, the Federal Circuit issued a decision holding that parties can contractually bargain away their rights to file petitions for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”). This...more
On February 8, the Federal Circuit held that a forum selection clause in a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) forfeited the parties’ right to file petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) to challenge the validity of patents at...more
This month’s EDTX & NDTX Wrap-Up summarizes two decisions from the Eastern District of Texas that issued in late June and in July. In the first decision, Judge Schroeder addresses the scope of IPR estoppel related to system...more
Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, Appeal No. 2019-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021) - In this week’s Case of the Week, the Federal Circuit revisited its decision in Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355...more
In General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., Case No. IPR2017-00491 (PTAB July 6, 2017) (Weatherly, APJ) (designated precedential on Sept. 9, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) declined to institute...more
The PTAB designated at least three more decisions as precedential. Of note, two of the cases rely on the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Click to Call, which is scheduled for argument at the Supreme Court on December 9,...more
On November 21, 2017, Petitioner Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC, filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 8–12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,094 B2. In its Preliminary Response, filed on March 7, 2018, Patent...more
The PTAB designated its termination decision in Infiltrator Water Technologies, LLC v. Presby Patent Trust, IPR2018-00224 (Paper 18)(entered October 1, 2018) as precedential on September 9, 2019, and its decision denying...more
Hogan Lovells’ U.S. + German Patent Update reports on recent patent news and cases from Germany and the United States. The January 2019 spotlight article covers a recent Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) decision in...more
Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in the IPR Context - In Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Appeal Nos. 2017-1525, 2017-1577, the Federal Circuit held that the plain language of 35 U.S.C. § 311(a) unambiguously...more
This year the Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Federal District Courts penned a number of opinions impacting patent law. Here are some key takeaways from the past year....more
Spineology, Inc. v. Wright Medical Technology Inc. (No. 2018-1276, 12/14/18) (Prost, Dyk, Moore) - Moore, J. Affirming denial of motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. “[W]e caution future litigants to tread...more
The U.S. and Germany are two of the most important fora in the world for patent litigation. The U.S. has long been one of the largest markets for patent litigation, and Germany has constantly attracted more than 50% of all...more
Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., Appeal Nos. 2016-2616, -2656 (Fed. Cir. May 16, 2018) - In an appeal from a inter partes review, the Federal Circuit reviewed a PTAB obviousness...more
Arbitration - Waymo v. Uber Technologies, 870 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) - Waymo sued Uber and others for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Uber contends that Waymo should be compelled to...more
Nexlearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc. (No. 2016-2107, -2221, 6/19/17) (Moore, Schall, Hughes) Moore, J. Affirming dismissal due to lack of personal jurisdiction....more
This post continues our monthly summary of patent litigation in the District of Minnesota, including short summaries of substantive orders issued in pending cases. In May, 2017, there were four notable substantive decisions...more
This paper is based on reports on precedential patent cases decided by the Federal Circuit distributed by Peter Heuser on a weekly basis. ...more
Update to TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, Case No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) - In an 8-0 opinion written by Justice Thomas (Justice Gorsuch did not participate), the Supreme Court rules that a defendant...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341: Respondent Kraft Foods brought a patent infringement suit against petitioner TC...more