In Ingenico Inc. v. IOENGINE, LLC, the Federal Circuit defined for the first time the scope of inter partes review (“IPR”) estoppel in district court and International Trade Commission (ITC) proceedings: IPR estoppel applies...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) recently issued a landmark decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, expanding what expenditures count to prove the economic prong of...more
Join Eric Klein and Paige Wright as they speak on “Energy Transition: Leveraging Intellectual Property.” The energy industry is experiencing massive transformation as incentives grow to invest in green technologies. This...more
Recent investment in clean-energy technologies has been nothing short of extraordinary. Fueled in part by generous government incentives designed to accelerate the transition to a lower-carbon economy, clean-energy projects...more
Since generative AI burst into the mainstream, companies have raced to capitalize on its extraordinary promise. But as with any technological frontier, this promise does not come without risks, and companies can expect to...more
6/25/2024
/ Algorithms ,
Antitrust Violations ,
Artificial Intelligence ,
Competition ,
Critical Infrastructure Sectors ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Electricity ,
Innovative Technology ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Inventions ,
Market Manipulation ,
Transmission Grid ,
USPTO
In a considerable shift in the law, the Federal Circuit has discarded the long-standing test for determining whether a design patent is invalid as obvious, in favor of the more flexible obviousness test historically applied...more
A host of questions are arising about the intellectual property rights attached to energy transition projects because of enormous investments in the space and the cutting-edge technologies that follow.
Energy transition...more
In Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc.,1 the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) decision cancelling registration of Great Concepts’ trademark due to the filing of a...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently considered whether portions of the Lanham Act that relate to trademark infringement can be applied to conduct that takes place outside the United States. Abitron Austria GmbH et...more
7/6/2023
/ Abitron Austria GmbH v Hetronic International Inc ,
Extraterritoriality Rules ,
Foreign Sales ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Lanham Act ,
Likelihood of Confusion ,
SCOTUS ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks ,
Use in Commerce
In a unanimous opinion in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, the Supreme Court held that two functional genus patent claims were not enabled under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).1 In doing so, it affirmed both the Federal Circuit’s previous decision...more
The machines aren’t coming for your job — they’re here to help. But when humans work with artificial intelligence (“AI”) assistance, who owns the final product?
If a person uses an AI tool to invent, is that person the...more
On February 8, the Federal Circuit held that a forum selection clause in a nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) forfeited the parties’ right to file petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) to challenge the validity of patents at...more
On April 6, 2021, the Western District of Texas ordered that preliminary injunction relief was appropriate to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s “discovery abuse and related misconduct.”...more
4/9/2021
/ Bad Faith ,
Counterclaims ,
Discovery ,
e-Discovery ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Fraudulent Concealment ,
Intentional Spoliation ,
Irreparable Harm ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Permanent Injunctions ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
Sanctions ,
Spoliation ,
Third-Party
On February 11, 2021, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion that suggests that inventions in fields where outcomes are unpredictable, such as biotechnology and chemistry, are more likely to lack enablement if they contain...more
On February 10, 2021, the Federal Circuit held that the term “computer” was indefinite because the prosecution history included arguments distinguishing prior art references that relied on conflicting understandings of the...more
On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit reissued a previously nonprecedential opinion as precedential that held that inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioners could not benefit from its earlier Arthrex holding to challenge adverse...more
On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit ruled that claims directed to software executed on a server are obvious in view of prior art that taught performing the same method on a local device. Uber Technologies, Inc. v. X One,...more
In case your parlance needs updating, the term sologamy refers to a marriage to yourself. Apparently unaware of this trend, the Federal Circuit recently explained that “[a] statute saying that ‘a person may marry any person...more