News & Analysis as of

IPR Motions for Joinder are Common, But Not Automatic

Recent statistics show that motions for joinder are granted about 60% of the time. While parties can, therefore, expect a sympathetic ear regarding these motions, they are not always successful and it is worth noting the...more

Prevailing Party Awarded Taxable Costs from Production to Opposing Party (California)

Apple Inc. v. Samsung, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014). In this intellectual property case, the plaintiff sought to recover around $1.5 million in costs for producing documents to an online hosted...more

Lightning Strikes and Patent Owner Gets Additional Discovery

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00717, Paper 17, IPR2014-00735, Paper 17 (October 2, 2014), the patent owner presented sufficient information to call into question whether Google was also a...more

Apple v. Samsung: Samsung's Invalidity Challenge to Apple's Patents Denied Where Legal Theory Was Not Disclosed until after Trial

After the jury trial between Apple and Samsung, and shortly before the July 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested leave to file supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of two of Apple's...more

Patent Filings, Decisions, Dispositions and Rehearings on September 3, 2014

Institution Decisions - In NeuLion, Inc. v. Cascades Ventures, Inv., IPR2014-00526, Paper 23 (September 3, 2014), the Board denied inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,156,236....more

IP Newsflash - August 2014 #5

Apple’s Motion for Permanent Injunction Denied - After the court found that Samsung infringed one of Apple’s patents on summary judgment and a jury found that Samsung infringed two others, Apple filed a motion for a...more

More Details, Details

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Affinity Labs of Texas, IPR2014-01184, Paper 3, IPR2014-01182, Paper 3, IPR2014-01181, Paper 3, August 5, 2014), the Board granted the Petition a filing date, but gave the petitioner five...more

Ex Parte Contacts

In Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in Black Hills Media, LLC, IPR2014-00717 Papers 6 and 7, IPR2014-00735, Papers 8 and 9 (July 10, 2014), the patent owner sent an improper email to the Board. In response, the petitioner send...more

Apple v. Samsung: Court Denies Samsung's Request for Discovery Based on Apple's Alleged Disclosure of Confidential Information

In the ongoing patent battle between Samsung and Apple, Samsung, trying to turn the tables on Apple, filed a motion for sanctions based on Apple's disclosure of confidential information. The court had previously sanctioned...more

ITC Section 337 Update

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Federal Circuit Standards For Patent Inducement Infringement And Indefiniteness – In two decisions on June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court materially changed the standards for patent...more

Toshiba & Samsung Argue - Technology Evolves/Patent Claims Don't

Judge Steve C. Jones entered a Markman Order (full order here) in the dispute between Synchrome Technology Inc. (“Synchrome”), as plaintiff, and Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (“Toshiba”), and Samsung...more

March 20, 2014 Patent Filings

New Filings - Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd filed IPR 2014-00514 challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580, assigned to Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP. ...more

March 19, 2014 Patent Terminations

Termination - The Board terminated Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.v. U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC, IPR2013-00384, Paper 16 (March 19, 2014), on the joint motion of the paries, the Board noting that the proceeding still...more

Fourth Circuit Affirms Application of Section 365(n) to Ensure Patent Licensees Sufficiently Protected in Granting Relief to...

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Jaffe v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., recently held that a U.S. bankruptcy court is not required under principles of comity to blindly apply foreign law to assets located in the...more

Apple v. Samsung: District Court Denies Samsung's Emergency Renewed Motion for Stay Pending Reexamination of Apple's Patent

In the continuing battle between Apple and Samsung, Samsung recently filed an emergency motion to stay pending reexamination of an Apple patent. To analyze whether the stay was appropriate, the district court provided an...more

Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter #34

We are pleased to present the 34th edition of the Bernstein Shur Business and Commercial Litigation Newsletter. This month, we highlight news that will have an impact on business and litigation, including articles and links...more

IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 11, November 2013

Appellate Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish In The Apple vs. Samsung Smart Phone Wars - A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that the district court was within its...more

Appellate Decision Sets Stage for Next Skirmish in the Apple vs. Samsung Smartphone Wars

In a case where the district court denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against certain Samsung smartphones, the Federal Circuit has remanded the matter to the district court in order to reconsider its...more

Apple v. Samsung: Court Orders Investigation into Potential Protective Order Violation by Samsung

As Apple and Samsung head toward yet another trial, Apple filed a motion for sanctions, accusing Samsung of violating the protective order in the case. Apple's motion asserted that Samsung's counsel had improperly shared...more

ITC Section 337 Update – October 4, 2013

Commission Issues Notice Of Shutdown Of Investigative Activities – On October 1, 2013, the Commission issued a Notice that, as a result of the broader shutdown of the federal government, the Commission “will shut down...more

The International Trade Commission: Easier Injunctive Relief-Except for Standard-Essential Patent Holders

Earlier this summer, the Obama administration dealt a blow to Standard-Essential Patent (SEP) holders by reversing an International Trade Commission (ITC) exclusion order granted in favor of an SEP holder. This action...more

USTR Rejects Import Ban On Apple Inc. Products

For the first time in 26 years, the White House exercised its veto authority over an International Trade Commission ("ITC") Exclusion Order. On June 4, 2013, the ITC determined in Investigation No. 337-TA-794 that Apple had...more

President Disapproves ITC Exclusion Order In -794 Investigation On Public Interest Grounds

On August 3, 2013, the President acting through the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) disapproved the decision of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or “Commission”) to issue an exclusion order in Certain Electronic...more

ITC Section 337 Update – August 7, 2013

White House Disapproves Commission Determination To Issue Exclusion Order In 794 Investigation – By Letter of August 3, 2013, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, acting on authority from the President, notified...more

Obama Administration Disapproves ITC’s Exclusion Order on Apple Products

On August 3, 2013, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, acting under the authority of President Obama, sent a letter noting his disapproval of the International Trade Commission’s determination to issue an exclusion...more

37 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2