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
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
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
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 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On May 5, 2020, the Federal Circuit reissued a previously nonprecedential opinion as precedential that held that inter partes review (“IPR”) petitioners could not benefit from its earlier Arthrex holding to challenge adverse...more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