Samsung Patents

News & Analysis as of

US Biosimilar Pathway Update

Six years after the biosimilar pathway was enacted into law, FDA has approved three biosimilars for marketing in the US. Sandoz’s Zarxio, a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen, was the first biosimilar to be approved. Zarxio, a...more

Magistrate’s Report With Recommendation To Deny Dismissal Of Induced Infringement Claim Is Adopted

Defendants contend that the report erred in finding that the factual allegations provided a plausible basis for inferring induced infringement because it incorrectly concluded that defendants had actual knowledge of the...more

Supreme Court Decides to Hear Samsung v. Apple, Appears Ready to Weigh-In on Patent Damage Calculations

This week, in Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Inc., No. 15-777, the Supreme Court granted Samsung’s petition for certiorari and agreed to hear the case about Apple’s smartphone design patents in its upcoming term. This will...more

Now It’s Apple and Samsung: Patents, Rulings and Appeals

In a Federal Circuit decision handed down recently, the appeals court overturned a $120 million jury verdict awarded to Apple. Samsung prevailed in this, the third appeal in this litigation. Two of Apple’s patents were found...more

Design Patents – Unlocking the Value of The User Experience

The oft-overlooked design patent has seen somewhat of a revival recently (at least in the media) ever since a jury in California awarded Apple $399 million in damages — i.e., all Samsung profits from the sale of several of...more

Apple (Finally) Enjoins the Sale of (Obsolete) Samsung Phones

In the latest development in the patent skirmishes between Apple and Samsung, on Monday, January 18, 2016, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California entered a permanent injunction barring...more

Federal Circuit Revised Injunction Decision To Emphasize Patented Feature Being One Of Several That Drive Purchasing Decision...

Last week, the Federal Circuit denied en banc review by the entire court of the three-judge panel decision in the Apple v. Samsung case that had revived the ability to obtain injunctive relief against multiple component...more

Fact-Intensive Reasonable Royalty Analysis Need Not Be Peer Reviewed or Published to Be Admissible - Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung...

Addressing the admissibility of expert testimony on damages issues, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s admission of expert testimony based on a fact-intensive analysis that was not...more

Apple Secures Its Permanent Injunction - Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Addressing the factors for granting injunctive relief in multifaceted, multifunction technology, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s denial of Apple’s request for a...more

Apple v. Samsung Part IV: The Injunction May Not Be Dead

On Thursday, September 17, 2015, in the fourth Federal Circuit opinion arising out of the patent skirmishes between global high technology titans Apple and Samsung Electronics, a sharply divided Federal Circuit panel vacated...more

ITC Section 337 Update – October 2015

ITC Proposes Extensive Changes To Rules For Adjudicating Section 337 Investigations – On September 24, 2015, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register announcing proposed changes to its...more

IP Newsflash - September 2015 #4

DISTRICT COURT CASES - Judge Gilstrap, in the Eastern District of Texas, Grants Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101 - On September 21, 2015, Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of...more

Federal Circuit revives injunctive relief against multi-feature products (Apple v. Samsung)

Today, a divided Federal Circuit panel issued a decision that vacates district court’s decision not to permanently enjoin Samsung from selling mobile devices having features found to infringe Apple’s patents. The majority...more

Inter Partes Review Proceedings: A Third Anniversary Report

When inter partes review (IPR) proceedings became effective in September 2012, few people would have predicted the transformative effect it would have on patents and the litigation landscape. Three years in, IPR has become...more

District Court Stays Action Pending Appellate Review of Motion to Compel Privileged Documents

The district court had previously ordered plaintiffs to produce certain documents to the extent that documents containing communications between plaintiff and its non-attorney patent agents were not subject to the...more

Apple Takes Us Back to PENCIL and PAPER

If you are a member of the Cult of Apple, like tech, or even just watch the news, you’re probably aware that yesterday was Apple’s big fall event where they announce new product launches and updates. The event showcased a...more

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Unpatentability Under Section 101 Denied Where Patents Were Not Directed to an...

Defendants Motorola Mobility, LLC, Amazon.com, Inc., Apple Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., HTC Corp., HTC America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and...more

IP Newsflash - July 2015 #4

FEDERAL CIRCUIT CASES - Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus Disallowing Use of U.S. Discovery in Foreign Proceedings - The Federal Circuit has granted mandamus vacating a New Jersey district court’s order that allowed...more

The European Court of Justice on Enforcement of FRAND Patents: Huawei v. ZTE

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) rendered its highly anticipated ruling in Huawei v. ZTE on the enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) which are subject to a FRAND commitment. SEPs play a significant role in the...more

No “Apportionment” Requirement for Design Patent Damages - Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.

Addressing the issue of damages for trade dress and design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the bulk of Apple’s roughly $930 million damages award, noting that there is no apportionment...more

Federal Circuit Review | June 2015

Accused Infringer’s Good-Faith Belief In Invalidity No Defense To Induced Infringement - In Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 13-896, the Supreme Court held a good-faith belief a patent is invalid is not a...more

Board Limits Multiple IPR Challenges in Samsung Electronics v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies

Rembrandt Wireless Technologies sued Samsung and Research in Motion for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,457,228 in June 2013. The ’228 patent relates to data communications, and in particular to a data communication system in...more

Design Patent Case Digest: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Decision Date: May 18, 2015 - Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - Patents: D593,087; D604,305; D618,677 - Holding: Judgment of trade dress dilution REVERSED; judgment of patent validity and...more

Trade Dress Updates: “Beauty” does not cut it

A recent decision of the US Federal Court (see: Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. May 18, 2015) reviewed the jury decision in Apple’s famous infringement lawsuit against Samsung. You may recall that Apple’s 2011...more

Cascades v. Samsung: Court Denies Motion to Compel Deposition of Trial Counsel but Grants Request to Produce Fee Agreement

Defendant Samsung Electronics Co. ("Samsung") filed a motion to compel plaintiff Cascades Computer Innovation, LLC ("Cascades") to produce additional documents and to require its trial counsel to appear for a deposition....more

71 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
JD Supra Readers' Choice 2016 Awards

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:

Sign up to create your digest using LinkedIn*

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.

Already signed up? Log in here

*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. Or, sign up using your email address.
×