On Friday, the PTAB’s Precedential Opinion Panel, colloquially referred to as “the POP,” ruled that the one-year window to file inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions begins once a complaint alleging infringement is...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated as precedential a decision from 2014, which found that counsel can confer with a deponent at the conclusion of cross examination and prior to redirect. Through...more
This week, the Supreme Court left open the question of Article III standing with regards to appealing a final written decision from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) that is favorable to the patent owner. On...more
6/20/2019
/ America Invents Act ,
Appeals ,
Article III ,
Denial of Certiorari ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Invalidity ,
Patent Trial and Appeal Board ,
Patents ,
SCOTUS
Services play a large role in today’s economy, and it is important to be mindful of how certain pitfalls that apply to product-based intellectual property rights also apply to method or process-based intellectual property...more
A Discovery Master in Limestone Memory Systems LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc. pending in the Central District of California recently provided additional guidance to practitioners and patent owners on this important question. The...more
A recent order from the District of Delaware in Evolved Wireless, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 15-00542 (“Evolved Wireless”) provides interesting guidance regarding the use of future sales in calculating lump-sum damages. This...more
4/1/2019
/ Admissibility ,
Calculation of Damages ,
Cross Examination ,
Damages ,
Evidence ,
Jury Instructions ,
Lump Sum Payments ,
Patent Assertion Entities ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents
A recent order from the Northern District of California in AU Optronics Corporation America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, 4:18-cv-04638 (CAND 2019-02-19) (“AU Optronics”), provides further guidance for patent venue analysis...more
Recently, in ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Fundamental Innovation Int’l LLC, IPR2018-00425, Paper No. 34 (Feb. 6, 2019), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) allowed Petitioner’s motion to retroactively correct its defective IPR...more
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director, Andrei Iancu, recently gave a speech to the American Intellectual Property Law Association where he discussed a new rule proposal aimed at improving the patent amendment process...more
Continuing our coverage of the Federal Circuit’s Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. (“Internet Time”) decision, on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit denied RPX’s request to rehear the case en banc....more
In an Initial Determination finding that Fujifilm violated Section 337 by infringing two patents held by Sony, ALJ Cheney found another patent invalid after ruling that inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel does not apply to...more
Today the Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced a final rule changing the claim construction standard for interpreting claims in inter partes review (“IPR”), post-grant review (“PGR”), and covered business method patent...more
Last week the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) provided yet another arrow in the patent owner’s quiver for defending against institution of IPRs. In NHK International Corp. v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,...more
On September 7, 2018, RPX Corporation (“RPX”) requested a rehearing en banc of the Federal Circuit’s July 2018 Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. decision, which held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) denied a second challenge to a patent where the petitioners were co-respondents in an ITC investigation. In Shenzhen Silver Star Intelligent Tech. Co., Ltd. v....more
Late last week, in Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc., the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) must place the burden of persuasion on the Petitioner to show it has named all real parties in...more
In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the Southern District of New York recently held that an employee’s home office in New York constituted a “regular and established place of business” in the state as required by the...more
In a May 10, 2018 ruling, discussed earlier on this blog, Magistrate Judge Payne affirmed the jury’s willfulness finding largely on the ground that TCL did not proffer any evidence that it held a subjective, good faith belief...more
5/18/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Evidence ,
FRAND ,
Good Faith ,
Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent-in-Suit ,
Patents ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
On May 10, 2018, Magistrate Judge Payne reconsidered his previous March 2018 order which had vacated a jury award, and granted plaintiff Ericsson’s motion for reconsideration. The May ruling makes clear that the accused...more
5/16/2018
/ Contract Interpretation ,
Contract Negotiations ,
Ericsson ,
FRAND ,
Georgia Pacific ,
IP License ,
Jury Awards ,
License Agreements ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or the “Commission”) published the final changes to its rules of practice and procedure. The Commission stated that the changes are intended to both...more
5/11/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Amended Rules ,
Discovery Disputes ,
Expert Testimony ,
Federal Pilot Programs ,
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
New Rules ,
Patents ,
Rules of Practice ,
Section 337
On April 18, 2018, the International Trade Commission (“Commission”) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) finding that a litigation funding agreement destroyed standing for a complainant at the ITC. In Certain Audio...more
4/27/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Article III ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Exclusive Licenses ,
Initial Determination (ID) ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
IP License ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Ownership ,
Patents ,
Revenue Sharing ,
Standing
On March 20, 2018, the public version of Eastern District of Texas Magistrate Judge Roy Payne’s March 7, 2018 order tossing a $75 million jury verdict obtained by Ericsson against TCL Communication was released. Ericsson...more
4/2/2018
/ Ericsson ,
Expert Testimony ,
IP License ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patent Royalties ,
Patents ,
Royalties ,
Smartphones ,
Standard Essential Patents ,
Willful Infringement
The United States Supreme Court decided earlier this year that a 1957 opinion is still valid and still limits venue choices for patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group...more
Late last week, the Federal Circuit granted a writ of mandamus in In re Cray, 2017-129 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2017), overturning Judge Gilstrap’s four-factor test for determining whether a defendant possesses “a regular and...more
On May 17, 2017, the International Trade Commission (ITC) reversed an ALJ’s ruling and found a violation of Section 337 in Certain Air Mattress Systems, Components Thereof and Methods of using the Same (“Certain Air Mattress...more
6/26/2017
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Business Expenses ,
Cost Allocation ,
Domestic Corporations ,
Exclusion Orders ,
Imports ,
International Trade Commission (ITC) ,
Medical Devices ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Public Interest ,
Reversal ,
Section 337