The Briefing: Shedding Light on ‘Willful Blindness’: Brandy Melville v Redbubble
6 Key Takeaways | Patent Opinions – New Developments and Pitfalls
Willful Patent Infringement: Understanding and Preparing for Claims
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Nota Bene Episode 99: Unpacking the Pendulum of American Patent Policy Then, Now, and Forward with Rob Masters
Patent Infringement: Successful Litigation Stays the "Course"
The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s finding of trademark infringement and award of damages against a manufacturer of storm shelters and its owner, and went a step further by ordering...more
Before Prost, Dyk, and Wallach. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Summary: Asserting the district court’s claim construction prevented consideration of additional prior art,...more
This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined a majority of appellate courts that have rejected rigid tests for attorneys’-fees awards in favor of flexible discretion at the district court level. The...more
Supreme Court Abolished Federal Circuit's Test for Willfulness - On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s...more
Several recent court decisions in patent infringement actions reflect the significant impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., which dramatically altered the landscape for...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in two consolidated cases (Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer) effectively lowering the standard for obtaining enhanced damages in...more
On June 13, 2016, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), the Supreme Court unanimously abrogated the Federal Circuit’s 2007 decision in In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir....more
In recent years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the Federal Circuit’s strict tests concerning monetary relief in patent cases in favor of more fluid standards that commit discretion to the district courts. In...more
Patent infringers take note: clever defenses by ingenious litigation counsel may come too late to save you from an award of exemplary damages. On Monday, June 13, in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v....more
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages. In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in a pair of cases decided together, Halo Electronics, Inc. v....more
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated, combined decision in Halo v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker v. Zimmer, relaxing the standard for awarding enhanced damages in patent litigation under 35 U.S.C. §...more
In a unanimous decision yesterday, the Supreme Court eliminated the requirement that patentees must show that an infringer was objectively reckless in order to obtain enhanced patent damages. The decision returned to the...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court eliminated the rigid test for enhanced damages that the Federal Circuit had erected in In re Seagate Technology LLC. The Supreme Court held that, under 35 U.S.C. 284, district courts have...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States set forth a new standard for awarding enhanced damages in patent infringement cases by striking down the Federal Circuit’s en banc Seagate framework as an “artificial...more
In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the Supreme Court issued a longawaited opinion dramatically altering the standard Federal Courts use for determining whether to increase patent infringement damages under...more
Unlike Cher, the U.S. Supreme Court can turn back time. In Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, the Court unanimously upended the law on enhanced damages for willful patent infringement set forth in by the Federal Circuit...more
On Monday, June 13, a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States made it easier for patent holders to receive damages from infringers. In the case of Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Docket No....more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Halo v. Pulse, overturning the Federal Circuit’s long-standing two-step test for willfulness and enhanced damages in patent-infringement cases. The Court’s ruling...more
The decision, which affects enhanced patent infringement damages, restores the statutory discretion of district courts, whose exercise of discretion should be channeled by sound legal principles limiting the award of enhanced...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s current standard for awarding enhanced patent damages, finding it too rigid and inconsistent with the enhanced damages statute, 35 U.S.C. §284. As...more
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that an award of enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 should be within the sound discretion of a district court, albeit...more
The aphorism that "[t]he race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet," variously attributed to Damon Runyon, Franklin P. Adams, and Hugh Keough, could readily be updated to include...more
In a unanimous decision issued on June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., relaxed the standard for awards of enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. In so ruling, the Court...more
Patents / Patent Eligible Subject Matter - Supreme Court to Myriad: Isolated DNA Sequences Are Not Patent-Eligible Subject Matter -- AMP et al. v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: In a 9–0 decision the Supreme...more