The Federal Circuit’s decision in Kyocera Senco Industrial Tools Inc. v. International Trade Commission articulated a bright-line test for patent expert admissibility: to testify from the perspective of a “person of ordinary...more
A district court recently precluded a patent attorney from testifying as an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit where the proposed expert lacked the requisite technical expertise to assist the trier of fact in...more
Key Points -
On June 21, 2022, USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal issued a memorandum titled “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings With Parallel District Court Litigation.”
Under...more
In the weeks preceding a recent Hatch-Waxman bench trial, a district court excluded portions of an expert’s opinion on obviousness that addressed internal documents and inventor testimony concerning the “inventors’ path” to...more
On January 3, 2019, following a jury’s award of $145 million in damages to Wi-LAN, the Southern District of California granted Apple’s motion for a conditional order of remittitur to a $10 million damages award. In granting...more
1/15/2019
/ Apple ,
Apportionment ,
Damages ,
Expert Testimony ,
iPhone ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Method Claims ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Remittitur ,
Technology Sector
Federal Circuit Affirms Inequitable Conduct Based On “Intentionally Selective” Disclosure -
On September 26, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel affirmed the unenforceability of three American Calcar patents,...more
10/6/2014
/ Expert Testimony ,
Inequitable Conduct ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Inventors ,
Joinder ,
Microsoft ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Target