On Thursday, the Federal Circuit ruled that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) must give the parties proper notice if considering a sua sponte theory of unpatentability in relation to a motion to amend. In doing so,...more
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) designated two inter partes review (“IPR”) decisions as precedential and one as informative. These decisions concern PTAB’s discretion to deny institution...more
In a February 19, 2020 decision the Federal Circuit held that a patentee does not escape 35 U.S.C. § 287’s marking requirement merely by ceasing sales of the practicing product. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that once a...more
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently reminded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) that it may not rely on evidence and arguments that fall outside the scope of the instituted grounds...more
When former President Barack Obama signed the Leahy–Smith America Invents Act into law on Sept. 16, 2011, the patent system in the United States underwent one of its most sweeping and significant overhauls. The AIA replaced...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
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 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
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
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 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
On January 27, 2016, the International Trade Commission (ITC) formally requested a rehearing en banc of a November 10, 2015, Federal Circuit panel decision in ClearCorrect Operating, LLC v. ITC. The Federal Circuit’s panel...more