News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › Component Parts Doctrine

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Butler Snow LLP

Navigating the Stream of Commerce: “Purposeful Availment” in the Wake of Ford

Butler Snow LLP on

We recently covered the United States Supreme Court’s troubling decision in Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, 141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021), which has broadened the reach of specific personal jurisdiction...more

White & Case LLP

Design patents: a growing trend in the hardware space

White & Case LLP on

Design patents–why now? We are in 2019. Aesthetics matter. Products that look good sell better. Hardware companies are investing increasing amounts of resources into design teams that create sleek and modern products that...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

The Ex Post Facto Effect: The U.S. Supreme Court’s DeVries Decision And Asbestos Litigation In The United States

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Colleagues and clients frequently pose the question whether after more than forty years the asbestos litigation juggernaut has finally neared its inevitable conclusion. The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in...more

Blank Rome LLP

The Supreme Court Adopts a Middle of the Road Approach When Deciding a Manufacturer’s Duty to Warn in the Context of Maritime Tort...

Blank Rome LLP on

On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries held that, under maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn of asbestos or other hazardous parts when its own product, although...more

Beveridge & Diamond PC

Too Much to “Bare”: US Supreme Court Rejects Bare Metal Defense Under Federal Maritime Law

Beveridge & Diamond PC on

In an eagerly anticipated decision by the asbestos bar, the United States Supreme Court in Air & Liquid Systems et al. v. DeVries et at., Dkt. No. 17-1104, 2019 WL 1245520 (March 19, 2019) rejected the “bare metal defense” as...more

Polsinelli

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Asbestos Defendants “Bare Metal Defense” in Maritime Cases

Polsinelli on

In Air & Liquid Sys. Corp. et al. v. DeVries et al., No. 17-1104 (March 19, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court held that under federal maritime law, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires the...more

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real...

SCOTUS Limits “Bare Metal Defense”

Pillsbury - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real... on

On March 19, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case of Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, affirming the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in this maritime tort case involving the availability of...more

Cozen O'Connor

SCOTUS Rejects Bare Metal Defense in Maritime Products Liability Actions Involving Asbestos Exposure

Cozen O'Connor on

On March 19, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the first case involving maritime law in several years. In Air & Liquid Systems Corp. et al v. Devries, et al, 586 US ___ (2019), Justice Kavanaugh, writing for the majority...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Narrows “Bare Metal Defense” For Maritime Asbestos Cases

Husch Blackwell LLP on

In its decision Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court held, under maritime law, that manufacturers can be held liable for injuries caused by asbestos-containing parts manufactured and added to their products by third parties. The...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Supreme Court Decides Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

On March 19, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104, holding that in the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when: 1) its product requires incorporation...more

Sunstein LLP

July 2018 IP Update: In Limited Circumstances, the Supreme Court Permits Businesses to Recover Patent Damages for Sales Made...

Sunstein LLP on

The Supreme Court recently answered the question whether a patent owner can collect damages caused by an infringer’s sales outside the U.S. Federal law typically reaches only conduct within the country, but the justices made...more

Jackson Walker

Extraterritorial Reach Of Patents— Impact Of Recent Supreme Court Decisions

Jackson Walker on

Jackson Walker partner Leisa Talbert Peschel spoke at the 14th Annual Advanced Patent Litigation Course on Thursday, July 12, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado. ...more

Miles & Stockbridge P.C.

Patents: Lost & Found WesternGeco Provides for Recovery of Lost Foreign Profits

Miles & Stockbridge P.C. on

Patents are valuable intellectual property assets that grant their owners a limited monopoly over the sale and use of the patented subject matter for a fixed period of time. The patent permits its owner to recover potentially...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

WesternGeco v. ION Geophysical

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

Lost Foreign Profits Awarded as Damages - It is an act of infringement under U.S. patent law to supply “in or from the United States” certain components of a patented invention with the intent that they “will be combined...more

Jones Day

What’s in Your "Article of Manufacture"?

Jones Day on

U.S. patent laws allow for the disgorgement of the "total profits" earned by a design patent infringer deemed to have applied the "patented design" to "any article of manufacture." The disgorged profits historically were...more

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical: U.S. Supreme Court Issues Decision on Patent Damages

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP on

On June 22, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in WesternGeco LLC v. ION GeoPhysical, which addresses the ability of a patent owner to collect lost profits from sales abroad for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)....more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Component vs. Complete - the US Supreme Court imposes extraterritorial lost profits damages on parties that violate section...

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On June 22, 2018, the US Supreme Court clarified the scope of permissible patent damages awards by holding that when a party is found liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) for exporting components of a patented invention, foreign...more

Husch Blackwell LLP

United States Supreme Court To Consider The Bare Metal Defense

Husch Blackwell LLP on

The United States Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. et al. v. Devries et al. and is set to wade into the fiercely contested waters surrounding the bare metal defense under...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

At about this time last year, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's determination that there are circumstances in which a party may be liable for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) for supplying or causing to...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - December 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Claims Directed to Methods for Streaming Audiovisual Data Held Unpatentable Under § 101 - In Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Communications, Appeal Nos. 2016-2531, 2016-2532, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district...more

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Supreme Court 2016-17 Recap

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on

The politics surrounding the appointment of a new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court dominated the news cycle during the 2016-17 term, but the Court’s decisions themselves have been far from controversial. As the term draws to...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Apple v. Samsung: What Does it Really Mean for Consumer Product Companies?

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

In 2011, Apple sued Samsung in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) alleging that several Samsung smartphones infringed utility and design patents owned...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

MoFo IP Newsletter - April 2017

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Supreme Court Restricts the Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law for Exported Goods - On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court in a landmark decision held that the supply of a single component of a multicomponent...more

Dickinson Wright

U.S. Supreme Court “Clarifies” Multi-Component Indirect Infringement

Dickinson Wright on

In the recently decided case of Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court evaluated when a party that provides some part – but not all – of a patented invention can be liable for induced...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | March 2017

Knobbe Martens on

Federal Circuit Remands IPR Final Decision For Inadequate Obviousness Analysis, Sidesteps Issue of Proper Claim Construction Standard - In Personal Web Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-1174, the Federal...more

64 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3
Next »

"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 Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide