4 Key Takeaways | Updates in Standard Essential Patent Licensing and Litigation
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 180: Listen and Learn -- Venue (Federal Civil Procedure)
Coverage Litigation Leapfrog: Why Venue Matters and How to Avoid Pre-emptive Strike Actions
The Evolution of Cross-Border Restructuring Processes
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Chapter 15 Bankruptcy Issues, Venue, and Jurisdiction by Kristhy Peguero and Jennifer Wertz
Bill on Bankruptcy: Delaware to Continue Dominating Bankruptcy
On August 19, 2024, the CFPB filed its reply brief in support of the CFPB’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce (Fort Worth Chamber) for lack of standing and, if granted, transfer the case to the...more
The Federal Circuit recently denied a mandamus petition seeking relief from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a patent case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Bel Power Solutions, Inc. sued...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of motions made by two car distributors to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas for improper venue, finding that the patent...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland (137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)), the venue statute for patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), has been interpreted to mean that venue is proper only where the defendant “resides” or...more
The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. ...more
The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments next month. But we’ll have to see if those plans change. Below we...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
Led by California, 23 states, including Massachusetts, have sued the Trump administration challenging new federal regulations that strip the states’ authority to set their own vehicle emissions standards. On December 3, 2019,...more
On September 30, 2019—more than two years after Plaintiff, Electric Mirror, LLC (“Electric Mirror”) first brought suit for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York—United States District Judge Andrew L. Carter...more
In Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 18-cv-1518 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), the California district court denied Lilly’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Opinion, Sept....more
WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY - Before Lourie, Mayer, and Reyna. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. Summary: To establish proper venue, a plaintiff must...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit elected not to decide en banc whether servers or similar equipment in third-party facilities constitute a regular and established place of business under the patent venue...more
On February 5, 2019, in a per curiam order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Google’s petition for rehearing en banc, and deferred for another day the question of whether the presence of...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Prost, Newman, Lourie, Dyk, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, and Stoll. Dissenting opinion to denial of petition for rehearing written by Reyna and joined by Newman...more
By Memorandum Order entered by The Honorable Richard G. Andrews in T-JAT Systems 2006 LTD. v. Expedia, Inc. (DE) et al., Civil Action No. 16-581-RGA (D.Del. January 29, 2019), the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for...more
On January 2, 2019, District Judge Paul Oetken (S.D.N.Y.) transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ("CDCA") an action brought by Plaintiff NextEngine, Inc. against Defendants NextEngine,...more
ArcelorMittal Atlantique Et Lorraine v. AK Steel Corporation, Appeal No. 2017-1637 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) - In an opinion originally filed as sealed on Nov. 5 and unsealed on Nov. 18, the Federal Circuit vacated and...more
Federal Circuit Summary - Before Dyk, Reyna, and Taranto, per curiam. Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Summary: In a case pending before TC Heartland was...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas recently issued an interesting decision regarding the venue analysis for car companies selling into a particular...more
In May 2017, the Supreme Court tightened the rule for venue over domestic defendants in patent infringement cases finding that, under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), venue is proper only “in the judicial district where the defendant...more
The District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has denied Google’s motion to dismiss or transfer the patent infringement case SEVEN Networks v. Google for improper venue, finding that Google’s servers housed by...more
Storage Units Do Not Satisfy Second Prong of Cray Test for Establishing "Regular and Established Place of Business" - Earlier this year, in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. United States Endoscopy Group, Inc., District Judge Nelson...more
A Complaint Identifying Infringing Products and the Patents Allegedly Infringed, Accompanied by Statements that the Products Meet All Elements of at Least One Claim of the Asserted Patents, May be Sufficient to Meet the...more
In an order issued on May 4, 2018, a Western District of Wisconsin Court addressed venue issues relating to subsidiaries of the same parent. Plaintiff Unity Opto Technology Co. (“Unity”) sued defendants Lowe’s Home Centers,...more
The Federal Circuit ruled that when a defendant is incorporated in a state that has multiple judicial districts, the defendant will reside in only one of the districts for venue purposes under the patent venue statute, 28...more