Latest Posts › Patent Litigation

Share:

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

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

Mandamus for the rest of us - The Federal Circuit continues its trend of clarifying patent venue post-TC Heartland

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court fundamentally narrowed patent venue by unanimously holding in TC Heartland that patent holders must follow the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which requires suing (1) “where the...more

Stayin' alive: What’s next for IPRs after Oil States and SAS

On April 24, 2018, the US Supreme Court decided two important cases that directly impact inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and patent litigation as a whole. In Oil States Energy...more

Federal Circuit Shifts the Burden to Amend Claims at PTAB…For Now: Aqua Products, Inc.  v. Matal

On October 4, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a divided en banc decision in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, vacating the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) final written decision insofar as it...more

Recent Rulings Clarify Venue Requirements in Patent Cases

On September 21, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cray, Inc. clarified the rules for determining proper venue in patent suits, building on the US Supreme Court’s May 2017 ruling in TC Heartland...more

“Not so fast . . .”: Eastern District of Texas Adopts Approach that Narrows Impact of TC Heartland 

When the US Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland was published, many patent practitioners thought that the decision would adversely affect the Eastern District of Texas, a popular venue for patentees because of its quick...more

Partnering Perspectives - Summer 2017

As we implement the Eversheds Sutherland combination and expand our ability to serve clients around the globe, our US and international teams are working together to analyze issues impacting clients doing business in multiple...more

The Supreme Court Narrows Forum Shopping in Patent Infringement Cases Against Domestic Companies in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food...

On May 22, 2017, the US Supreme Court unanimously rejected prior case law allowing patent holders to rely on the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), to file suit where a domestic defendant makes sales. TC Heartland,...more

Federal Circuit Further Narrows the Availability of CBM Review

On February 21, in Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Nat’l. Assoc’n, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) characterization of Axcess’s patent as a covered business...more

Solidifying Claim Construction in Inter Partes Review – Cuozzo Allows Patent Office to Govern the Inter Partes Review Process

On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 2016 WL 3369425 (June 20, 2016) upheld the Patent Office’s long-held policy of construing a patent claim according to its broadest...more

Stay Out of the Weeds: Egregious, Not Garden-Variety, Patent Infringement Is Subject to Enhanced Damages

On June 13, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s rigid two-part test for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases. In two cases decided together, Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., and...more

De Novo Review of Claim Construction No Longer the De Facto Standard

On January 20, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, rejected the de novo review standard applied by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when reviewing all claim construction...more

What Do You Mean? Nautilus Ruling Holds That a Patent Claim Must Convey with Reasonable Certainty the Scope of the Invention

On June 2, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc. that a patent claim may be found indefinite if it fails to convey the scope of the invention “with reasonable certainty” to a person...more

It Takes One to Infringe: Akamai Ruling Holds That Induced Infringement Requires Direct Infringement by a Single Party

On June 2, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. that direct infringement by a single party is a prerequisite to a finding of induced infringement. In doing so, the...more

Legal Alert: UPDATE: The Hare Loses Steam – Patent Litigation Reform Law Unlikely This Year

Efforts by the U.S. Senate to pass an alternative to the Innovation Act, which aims to reform abusive patent litigation, have stalled. Sen. Patrick Leahy, who is leading the effort, has announced that his committee is tabling...more

High Octane Patent Litigation? Supreme Court Relaxes Standards for Awarding Attorneys' Fees While Increasing Deference on Appeal

In twin unanimous opinions issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected long-standing Federal Circuit rules governing the award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in patent litigation, and appellate review of...more

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

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